(1) I'm a strong believer that anyone with a job should be easily able to get health insurance and be able to send their children to university (i.e. even if law doesn't enforce it I think a decent minimum wage for all employees is appropriate)
(2) people doing work of similar value should get similar compensation in the same organization/on the same team (i.e. location based pay adjustments should be minimal at most)
(3) hiring should be diverse w.r.t. background/class/education (i.e. search widely and resist hiring people's friends)
I think these are not just moral issues, I think a culture of fairness also benefits morale and gives people more confidence to contribute and feel heard. And I think these kinds of issues become especially important when considering public organizations and non-profits.
I have a feeling the type of progressiveness that people are concerned about is this kind:
> "Sixteen percent [of progressives] have tried to have something banned, versus a seven percent national average.
>"We asked whether it is “fair or unfair for people who say grossly offensive things to be at risk of losing their livelihoods?” Nationally, 48 percent believe it is “fair,” but this figure rises to 65 percent for social democrat-aligned Labour voters, compared with 39 percent for right-leaning Conservative voters."
>"Our polling found that while the most popular word selected, from a list of nine, by Conservatives to describe people “with strongly different political views to my own” was “honest” (39 percent), the most popular among Labour voters was “closed minded” (28 percent)"
They are... you might just be confusing an actual progressive activist with someone whose sociology degree comes from Twitter.
I am not quite sure what you mean with objections? If you mean that people are not willing to talk about those things: I accept it, and stop talking about it. (Aslong as it is no direct issue like those people using the N-word, or being racist in general.)
About disagreement: It would be pretty strange if everyone would have the same opionion? I ask people about their reasons and try to understand their point of view. If they have valid arguments that I was not aware of, I am open to change my opinion.
BUT: If people come at me saying: Climate Change is a hoax, The complete media and science is controlled by the elites etc... Then i stop talking to them, as they would never consider an argument opposing to their opinion as valid.
AND: If someone considers people inferior only because of their gender, their race or their religion? Then I tell them indirectly, to go and **** themselfs.*
* At work I would try to be more diplomatic. Otherwise a whole team dynamic could be destroyed. But In my personal environment, I am as direct as possible. I do not want those people in my life.
Would something like the Danmore memo[1] count?
[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...
It seams as if the memo was written in a good intention. What I took away from the text is that he mostly considers people different, not inferior, because of their gender. It would be dumb to completly disagree with that. I think rational and follow science, therefore I agree on some off his points. I disagree with the extend of his conclusions and imo he sometimes mixes up correlation and causality.
But those are all things one could discuss. He sounds like reasonable guy.
Things like:
- "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."
- Followed by him arguing that the attemp to reduce the gender gap (Which is imo clearly a result of sexism) is discriminating the poor white man.
- On Top the strange "Woman on average" part connected to "Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination"
My view on the tone of the whole memo changed. One could interpret it, as a "white guy whining about people taking his century old priviledges away".
BUT: I would need to talk with him about it, to really know what his intention was. Again, ignoring his short reference to the IQ tests, I did not have the feeling that he was openly considering certain people inferior. I would still be open to talk to him.
If Google fired him, just for this memo and not because of a combination of other things he said and did, it would be exeggerated. And it would support at least his points on "alienating conservatives"
I am very worried about inequality and climate change causing massive issues down the road and the current system does not seem sufficiently equipped to address this - the "short term productivity" signal seems unlikely to lead to a solution by itself. So I guess fear plays a role as well.
What I would definitely not want is a mono-culture where everyone thinks like me, or large scale central planning, or anything of that kind. But I am desperate to find a feasible gradual path from where we are now to something more sustainable - if we don't find something gradual, I'm afraid change will be sudden and uncontrollable.
I know there is a lot of frustration about cancel culture, political correctness, virtue signaling, social justice warriors, etc. I think the issue here is mainly one of polarization and lack of effective discourse - it's easier to call people names than engage thoughtfully (which goes both ways). I hope we will find a way to get better at this collectively.