The politics of $RICH_GUY_WHO_WORKS_AT_TECH_IN_THE_WEST_COAST are not secret, I was just laughing at the prospect of a seemingly neutral "project" which is just a way of denouncing companies that use their advertisement power to show how leftist they are (because in this day and age they have no other choice) while, at the same time, they give money to those eeeevil conservatives.
"Pinboard has been keeping track of political donations from big tech companies" does not seem to imply that it's a completely biased report, but yeah, I should have known better :P
Yeah so far from what I've seen all the big tech companies PAC's give with roughly 50/50 distribution of funds between left and right wing politicians. Whether that is good or bad is up to your own judgement. Personally I stopped donating to my company's PAC because I want more control of who my donations go to, but from what I've seen the corporate PAC's are all pretty well balanced.
50/50 doesn't necessarily mean 50/50. If I give to my preferred candidate and give to an opposing candidate that I think would be easy for my candidate to beat, then I'm not really giving 50/50.
Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.
There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though.
If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.
Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people, if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing it collectively as individuals.
Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical view more than a philosophical one
Nobody should be having that discussion at work, but sadly that discussion does occur. It mostly occurs behind the back of "Alice" so if you ever hear that type of talk it is your job to report it to HR who can investigate. No one should have to fear for their safety when they come to work.
I was responding to the exact argument made in the post above me. Since people are downvoting me, presumably because I used sarcastic humor and HN is populated by people who are just too darn logical for sarcasm,* let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that.
However, even if the work has a strict "no politics" policy, if Bob does have significant prejudice against transgender people, then having Bob in the workplace with Alice at all potentially puts her at risk. There doesn't need to be a conversation about trans rights for him to know that she is trans, and for that to translate into harassment and even violence.
I don't have a solution for that problem. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. And it's not a problem that's solved by prohibiting employees from talking about controversial topics in the workplace -- which is the argument that was made by the poster I was actually responding to.
> Since people are downvoting me ... let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that.
You were trying to use an outlier, an extremist situation (badly representing the opposing part) to frame a discussion about general principles for politics.
Of course you will get downvoted. It’s not a constructive contribution.
I think you should not discuss politics at work. Unfortunately I agree with you: this will lead to only feelgood (i.e. leftist) politics being talked about.
lol "0-day vulnerability". I've known this since forever, everybody does. If you have someone on your contact list you see them with the name you've stored them as on your contact list in groups too.
Telegram is not e2e encrypted by default and group chats can simply not be encrypted. Whoever uses Telegram expecting security is a dunce.
I'm serious. Your url about the previous HN post was relevant but the rest of your message sounds really defiant. Just an honest feedback about what I feel.
Edit: very high, it seems https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC