[radicaldreamer]

Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions? There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.

[stcredzero]

Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions?

Yes. People will discover that you have nuanced views, then start to talk to basically warn you ominously, or send you home in a cab. People with power will leave you hanging, wondering if your life will be destroyed.

There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.

The problem isn't the obnoxious people. Obnoxious people thrive on their conflicts with each other. The problem is what happens to reasonable people. The problem is the intolerance of asking questions and of loyal opposition. The problem is that there's so much hostility towards honest inquiry. You're either with them or against them. I remember when the left was horrified at hearing a phrase like that from the Right. Now the Bay Area Left say it.

[true_religion]

I am curious for my own sake, what are some controversial views that you have heard?

[rayiner]

It's notable that Thiel had right-leaning views for a long time, and it wasn't until he acted on them and helped elect Trump into office that anyone pushed back.

[andriesm]

Whats wrong with helping to elect Trump?

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads on generic political tangents. They're certain to be repetitive and they lead to flamewars—the two things we most don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[stcredzero]

The same things that are "wrong" with donating money to the "wrong" PAC. Nothing. People should be praised for peacefully taking part in one of the longest standing and most successful democratic republics in history.

It's people who try to gain acceptance of violence in US politics who should be condemned. It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.

[harryh]

It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.

Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players or his near constant denigration of the free press?

What about the people that helped elect this obviously unfit leader? There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."

[stcredzero]

Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players

The whole point of free speech is to be able to express. The current president has always erred on the side of expressing too much, and I'd say that we'd be better off without most of his tweets, or him in office. However, none of that is opposing free speech.

or his near constant denigration of the free press?

The mainstream news media in its death throes is objectively bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qmiPWgCYb4

https://www.theknifemedia.com/

There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."

That sounds pretty authoritarian. The whole point of freedom is that we are able to be right or wrong. It's our choice. That's "the consent of the governed." Do I wish the election had gone differently? Yes. But simpleminded vilifying of almost 1/2 of the country isn't a constructive approach.

[rayiner]

Using your platform as POTUS to criticize people for exercising their free speech is quite a bit different from simply expressing your own contrary opinion.

[rayiner]

Helping elect someone is where “political beliefs” start to cross over into “political action.” People should respect each other’s political beliefs; but they’re also entitled to oppose people who take political action that conflicts with their own interests.

[Natsu]

The problem with this is that the justification goes both ways and this logic can also be used to disenfranchise people. Voting is a political action, after all. Why is it special? It's a right? Who gets to decide what is and isn't a right?

So I wouldn't want to promote that thinking lest I end up on the wrong end of it due to not being stronger than the other party. That's basically the political law of the jungle. That's not exactly what civilization should strive for, is it?

[rayiner]

Of course voting is a right nd helping to get political candidates is a right. But when you exercise your rights in a way that implicates other peoples’ self interest, it is proper for them to push back in a way that would not be appropriate if someone simply expresses a viewpoint.

If I own an apartment building, I have every right to kick out all the tentants and sell the building. The law shouldn’t stop me from doing that. But I can’t complain if people try to stop me, bring bad publicity against me, etc. They’re entitled to do that in a way they wouldn’t be if I simply expressed pro-landlord views.

[Natsu]

Of course I agree that both sides have free speech rights to advocate for what they believe in. It's the precise contents of that "etc." that worry me.

[yosho]

The James Damore Google manifesto and the Youtube creator demonetization censorship comes to mind right now. Granted that's only one company, Google, but I think there's a general feeling that if you're not on the left leaning political spectrum, you're going to have your opinions shuttered.

[gameswithgo]

Google has also fired two liberal employees for being insufferable (that are known/public). So perhaps it is more a case of Google firing insufferable people rather than particular views.

[rapsey]

No account of events leading to Demores firing portrayed him as insufferable.

[dredmorbius]

Objectively untrue, given counterexamples I've seen from Google insiders.

[keo92znx]

His manifesto alone paints such a picture. No anecdotes from others necessary.

One coder with no unique personal success outside being hireable by Google painting the majority of the species as lesser, with cherry picked stats that ignore human history and social trends?

Edit: I don’t care about what numbers he put in his memo. It’s the idea of peddling such a thing in the first place by someone who has no authority

Saying math says we should behave a certain way is enabling authoritarian rule, IMO

Demore forgets that he’s one of billions. He can think what he wants using his numbers, but it’s not iron clad and means nothing given that the data is generated in a highly curated social structure

It’s less “his math is off” and more “why do I care who this Demore fellow is? Because he has math? Meh lots of people do. It’s not very interesting math and theory.”

That’s not likely to connect with this crowd.

Pretty self-aggrandizing and full of shit, IMO. Not something a “place of business” as Google has painted itself in these situations, should support

[wand3r]

to be fair your opinion is less scientifically rigorous than the actual scientific papers he cited which was his formulation of data less than opinion. You can disagree with him & those papers but I do think a blanket dismissal of him as a person is difficult to infer from a single inter-office memo

[keo92znx]

Tbf this Hacker News, a casual social forum.

I’m indifferent to concerns about rigor in my comments. Also I’m on a phone and half interested, passing the time on a bus.

[rapsey]

> painting the majority of the species as lesser,

He did that? Where?

[keo92znx]

He made comments outside his paper that women just aren’t as good at men or more of them would find satisfaction in this

I’m not linking it because it’s not like this is an esoteric notion that requires extreme vetting

It’s one a-hole who in the big picture isn’t important to anyone but himself. Something I think this forum and society as a whole have lost sight of

I have my own take on it. Add some variables he excluded and his whole thesis goes to shit. But it still says nothing but math is like English; it can be made to produce a result that tells whatever story we want

Some folks seem to think every formula peddles some inherent truth of reality, which is nonsense

[rvo]

You need to take introduction to statistics and understand what a distribution is and what kinds of insights we can get from them.

[MadSudaca]

maybe you should read the memo

[dsfyu404ed]

I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way.

Look at the comments in here on any article about something that's vaguely political or a social issue in a flyover state, rural are or "less developed" country. There's this weird implication of slight superiority.

A lot of them often read with a sort of pro colonialism white mans's burden sort of tone. It's like everyone else isn't capable of figuring out their own problems and needs the smart people to rule them. There's also a sort of Christian missionary kind of undertone where everyone who doesn't believe like we do faces eternal damnation so it's our responsibility to get them to shun their existing beliefs and convert. It's not a malevolent intolerance, it's a saving you for your own good kind of intolerance.

I can't quite put my finger on it (so I'm drawing parallels instead) but I don't like it.

[stcredzero]

I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same

Okay, so you don't have to have a bit-accurate copy.

but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way.

The above is pretty much a definition of intolerance.

[dsfyu404ed]

Yes, intolerance is intolerance. Being able to abstract away the intolerance and treat it as though it's just the result of being confronted by incompatible beliefs makes it easier to rationalize doing it because it makes it partly the result of other people having the "wrong" beliefs and therefore not wholly your fault.

[stcredzero]

It's funny how one's own intolerance is always "right" because the other people are always "wrong."

[keo92znx]

Agreed. Being good at math or some other technical topic doesn’t mean you’re not still a human who is easily emotionally manipulated.

Science relies on bad experiments. But of course folks like Thiel and Demore act like they got it right and can just keep on doing, cause of a sense of privilege.

Thiel isn’t doing the work himself. That’s impossible. But rules should be avoided. Relies on society to collectively provide, but says society isn’t allowed to expect anything back.

IMO, those sorts seem to be especially easy to manipulate emotionallly. Patted on the back all their lives, but if you should try to stop them they get salty. Forgetting that they’re still one of many.

Look at all the “anarchist” gamers and hacker types with no identity otherwise. Lots of dismissive rhetoric towards women and minorities, based solely on emotional opinion

They grew up with that “on in the background” and just kept tinkering and building on their things, otherwise, while the world (mom) made sure they had food and clean laundry.

So the rest of the world should be like mom to these emotional babies.

They may not go to church, and may now be anti-God, but what patterns were embedded in their youth that are not recallable verbatim, but see the world through same as usual expectations.

There is so much we don’t know still about the human brain and consciousness.

[threatofrain]

What ties James Damore to positions or values of conservatism, other than him saying so? What core conservative value or worldview is at play here?

[Consultant32452]

I suspect the worldview difference is individualism vs collectivism.

[api]

That isn't the operating dichotomy anymore. Most modern conservatives are collectivists. Nationalism, racial identity movements, and religious traditionalism are all to varying degrees collectivist. Any talk of saving our culture, race, etc. is collectivist.

[threatofrain]

I thought it was the view that women and men were different, and that an embrace of that fact would reveal askew sex ratios for different occupations.

Also, what group claims individualism as their value? Liberals or conservatives? I suspect many people would say they are pro individual freedom and rights when framed as individualism vs collectivism. Also, do conservatives champion individualism or community?