There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
I was referring to the quote from the article "that people who agreed with [Zuckerberg's decision] were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive," so I don't think it's a misreading of the situation. On the contrary, I'm expressing my lack of surprise, given my personal experience as a conservative in tech with a 98% liberal peer group. I am unable to talk freely about my political beliefs in the same way that, say, Biden or Bernie supporters are. I would be labeled a racist simply for agreeing with any republican point of view. Whereas I routinely see friends on Facebook getting hundreds of likes on statuses that call republican politicians "vile" or "scum."
As an aside, what's particularly frustrating is how many people assume or expect that I hold the same views as them when in casual conversation. Someone will bring up Trump as if it's a foregone conclusion that he's a racist sociopath and anyone who supports him is one too, and I just have to nod along and laugh with them, or find a way to change the subject, lest I be "outed" as some sort of violent extremist for supporting the president.
> The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence
Unequivocally? I think you could find a lot of people who disagree with this assessment of his words. Who's to decide what is "unequivocally" an incitement of violence?
> There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts." Regardless, of course there is a difference between political speech and inciting violence. But who is to be the arbiter of it? Because from what I've seen, certain people on the left can twist almost anything outside of their agenda to fit their definition of "violence." As a contrived example, some on the left would be "offended" by the suggestion that "a country is not a country without a strong border," equating it to "locking kids in cages." Is it violence to advocate for strong borders and criminal consequences for illegal immigration? Or is it political speech? What about when the president says it?
You are totally correct. I do think this. I have ample evidence that backs up my case as well. I think the quote "when they start looting, we start shooting" which was hidden by Twitter for inciting violence, is enough for me.
> This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts."
I don't think we can have a real conversation because we disagree about the basic facts on the ground.
Trump, from my position, is clearly, repeatedly and blatantly pushing people to violence using Twitter. In fact, even Twitter thinks so.
Umm... except that’s not what he said though. If it was, I would completely agree with you that it is an incitement (more accurately, a proclamation) of violence. But what he actually said was:
"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"
And, per Wikipedia:
"He said that he was not aware of the phrase's 'racially-charged history'. He added that he didn't know where the phrase had originated, and that his intent in using it was to say 'when there's looting, people get shot and they die.'"
So his statement is not an incitement, but a prediction. You may believe that Trump is lying about his intention, but that's a different debate.
At best we have a leader of our country too irresponsible to do due diligence on his own posts to the entire free world. He has literally infinite resources at his disposal to communicate effectively about this.
Being a hateful bigot and or an ignoramus should both be unacceptable positions for the leader of the US. Furthermore this isn't the first time he's said or done hateful / bigoted / ignorant things / lied so you'll excuse people if they don't give him the 'benefit of the doubt'.
That's something you take up at the ballot box or with your Congressperson/governer, not Facebook.
I don't exactly understand what is objectionable about protesting the decision making of corporate entities given the immense power they hold?
This is like saying you shouldn't boycott BP for their oil spill, you should just complain to your congressperson. I don't understand why you can't complain on both fronts?
Just created a new account just to tell you we're at least 2 conservatives in tech. Pretty sure I'll get angry and abandon this account very soon again because of the liberal bias here, and their adoration for the downvote button, but whatever, anything for a conservative colleague :)
> There should be a term for "liberal privilege" when you're able to post your political views under your real name.
They can post under their real name, doesn't mean it's not gonna cost them someday for a future job or who knows what, karma works in complex ways.
I almost think Trump keeps winning elections out of a sense of schadenfreude. No one likes the guy, but when you constantly get downvoted and people attempt to silence any minor disagreement from the party line, it sure makes you want to vote for him out of spite (I won’t though).
I definitely think a lot of his appeal has to do with his ability to rile up the left then demonstrate their ineptitude at stopping him. He's also doesn't seem to have much in the way of strong principles on subjects, instead, he does pretty much exactly what he thinks his supporters will like.
His corruption is the trade-off one makes for electing a politician like him. He'll do whatever it takes to make his constituents happy, and in return they give him a blank check.
for all the lofty scientific & neutral ideals that rational/atheistic/left/liberal people chest-thump, they should be able to judge an idea for its content and not for the person.
but since we know that no one is that scientific, just post views under a pseudonym, unless you plan to run for political office.
if the idea is acceptable, it will be accepted.
It reminds me of a joke by the late singer-comedian-punk activist, “Freak” Antoni: “Let’s eat shit: millions of flies just cannot be wrong!”
This said, I honestly have no answer to the current predicament. We have populist parties collecting substantial victories simply by claiming they are not allowed to say what they are saying, and then use those victories to actually restrict the speech they don’t like. It’s a bit like rappers complaining that radios won’t play them and they are discriminated against, while breaking all sorts of airtime records and flaunting their bling.
Even you - you have a government you agree with, doing stuff you agree with, but somehow... you’re an oppressed victim. How much of this is due to the vagaries of your electoral system (you are effectively in a minority, but still you rule over the majority), how much is rehashing the good old practices of ancient Christianity (persecuted for 2000 years, while ruling the world for most of those same 2000 years), how much is modern weaponization of the democratic conundrum, Weimar-style? And how much is just an excess of visibility of relatively small and intolerant fringes on all sides?
I don’t know, and I honestly cannot see a way to make you happy and progress society at the same time.
Welcome to the life of a conservative in tech. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because it's clear that speaking about our political beliefs can lead to negative repercussions in our career. Good luck getting a job or investment after you've publicly posted anything in line with Trump's agenda (which, btw, about 60 million people seem to at least partly agree with).
The result is that the only conservatives remaining in public view are the loony ones who can afford to speak out without risking their job, don't care about their corporate reputation, or have to post from pseudonyms. People on the left see this and conclude that everyone on the right is an extremist, further assuring them that their leftist views are "on the right side of history."
There should be a term for "liberal privilege" when you're able to post your political views under your real name.