It’s way worse than that. Even centrists and liberals are silenced by the vocal mob for merely questioning the validity of certain policies or initiatives that claim to have some righteous sounding goal, even when there is evidence that the proposed policy is more likely to be harmful than helpful. For example, it should not be controversial to debate the merits of Black Lives Matter, but since the alternate reality that certain people want to project doesn’t hold up well against facts and data, it’s easier just to brand you a racist (or whatever-ist, depending on the topic) instead. There is a ton of self-censorship and coercion by these activists asserting their supposed moral authority, which is not a good road to go down.

In an industry full of data scientists and engineers, it amazes me how people go along with this narrative that disparate outcomes among members of arbitrary group identities is evidence of discrimination. We know that is not a valid application of statistics, yet people who know better still keep repeating it.

Not only will you be viciously attacked for questioning BLM, but an open source maintainer at Facebook was publicly attacked by coworkers for politely declining a request to put a BLM banner on the website for an open source project (he stated he wanted to remain apolitical, without giving an opinion).

Social advocacy is a spiritual replacement to religion and supporters are even more fervent.

I always find it curious that some people find BLM as something by which the merits of are debatable. What’s there to debate?

It depends on if your use of BLM means "lives of those of African-decent matter" or "the Black Lives Matter movement/group".

Personally i would expect the former to have more widespread support in America. The latter stands for many things that could be more controversial in the states. A DuckDuckGo for "blm demands"[0] returns the following NPR piece[1] from DC-based interviews. It lists BLM demands as:

  - Defund Police
  - No New Jails
  - Decriminalize Sex Work
  - Police-Free Schools
  - Drop Charges Against Protesters
  - End Cash Bail In Maryland
  - Ban Stop And Frisk

0: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=blm+demands

1: https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/06/09/872859084/here-s-wh...

That any race matters more than any other race. If someone put "X Lives Matter" on a t-shirt, where X is any other race, they would be attacked, or at least fired from their job.

Similarly, you can go to work wearing a blue Biden hat, and nothing would happen. However, if you went to work wearing a red Trump hat, it might be your last day at work.

In a democratic society, this doesn't make sense.

THIS is why it’s so insidious. BLM is a well funded political organization with self-described marxist founders. It has about as much to do with black lives as the Nazi party had to do with “national socialism”.

Nobody thinks black lives don’t matter. This is very different from supporting BLM, however. Many prominent black public figures have come out denouncing BLM, and it isn’t because they think their own lives don’t matter.

The name is purely orwellian PR trickery that you can’t argue with, just like “antifa” is. It’s a remarkably effective tactic because most people assume it just means what the words say.

Do companies have an obligation to be democratic? Are democratic companies common?

Protected classes aside, if I start a company I can choose to hire or exclude whomever I choose. I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans, or only people who can't stand the taste of bananas. If this turns out to be a bad business decision (which it probably is), the market will punish me and I'll eventually lose to smarter competitors. Right?

> I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans

This might be illegal in California, which considers political activity to be a protected class.

I didn't realize that, you are likely correct! I could start such a company in my state, but I'd have to be very careful with jurisdictions. In practice most companies I'm familiar with have official policies banning political discrimination across the board, which makes sense considering the importance of California in tech.

I actually find it quite curious that you’re not allowed to discriminate based on religion, but allowed to discriminate based on political views, throughout the West.

One is a freely chosen personal belief, and the other is a freely chosen personal belief.

Actually, they’re different. People typically acquire one through indoctrination, and the other... Oh wait, you’re right.

They do not have an obligation. However, employees will feel it is unfair if their side is not heard as much as the other side.

Agreed, being democratic seems to be generally a good practice for employers. Especially those that need to compete for talent.

You can't discriminate against certain protected classes, but yes, it boggles my mind a little bit that someone could think "a corporation" is anything other than one of the most authoritarian, top-down governance structures ever devised.

If it's voluntarily formed, it's not authoritarian.

When a political faction deems that those who refuse to pay half their income for a highly benevolent social program, will face punitive legal consequences, that is authoritarian. I only bring this up because I suspect you are in support of these kinds of programs.

It is voluntarily formed at the top, but in practice labor is a required aspect of life in a capitalist society.

If there are only 10 companies and only one will hire you, with no capital you have zero choice but to work for that company.

Labor is required by nature, not by capitalism.

I quote Frédéric Bastiat:

Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd.

Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy. One thing, however, remains - it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself.

The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the State - that is, the Law itself.

Most conservative activism is just...wrong

That's what liberals say. Conservatives will say the opposite. Hence you need both or neither, or someone will be unhappy.

conservatives are more interested in staying on power over actually being right about anything though, it's a fact

Why is it a fact? I'm independent, so I usually let the other two sides battle it out among themselves, while I stand by and am usually quite impressed by the sophisticated and clever arguments going both ways. I have yet to be swayed either way. Still, it's interesting!

In a way it's an optimization. My hope is that one day, when the two sides have finally come to a conclusion as to which one is right, I can join that one, and save myself a lot of trouble in the meantime ;)