[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca...
If so, that level of "we must stamp out the heresy!" is generally associated with more extreme religious types, not supposedly rational open-minded people. And that's where the danger lies: once you stop permitting the expression of contrary views, your ability to argue against them will atrophy.
There's a layer of semiotics that's important to any outward appearance. Wearing a swastika but saying "Nonono it's a Hindu symbol of fertility" probably wouldn't go over well. Nor would saying "Well I didn't like the Holocaust but I really did think the Nazis had some good ideas about things". Similarly, wearing a hammer and sickle shirt will get you into trouble in more conservative places.
The MAGA hat's obviously on a different level than that, but it does explain some of the reasoning. That hat in particular represents (sometimes fanatical) appreciation for a man that liberals believe is doing immense harm to our nation, it's citizens and its image via racist, reactionary and backwards-looking politics. Because of far-right extremists, I get scared when I see that hat, to me it signals some form of white supremacy that I need to stay away from. So yes, wearing it at work might make people uncomfortable.
Got the hat? Wear it and defend your ideas. I am open minded and rational, or at least I think I am. But if you think I'm stamping out heresy because I don't tolerate bigotry, tough.
BTW, my paternal grandfather was an illegal. Paid his taxes. Stayed out of jail. The grand kids, at least on this half, have been amazingly successful and contributed a lot to the economy, society and our national defense.
I am lucky to be a citizen. Were I an Iranian green card holder visiting family abroad when the first Muslim travel ban was implemented? I would now be facing losing my job and my home. A transgender member of the armed forces now? Facing losing my livelihood in a matter of months. An undocumented immigrant who is the only support for his documented family? Now the entire family is homeless and fatherless.
At best this argument applies to Hillary/Obama through some hand-waving abstract argument about environmental regulations and international trade agreements that ignores economic opportunities created by their policies. Someone banned from their livelihood because of their identity has no recourse.
That's essentially saying that people have to agree with the whole platform or none of it.
As an example, there are many liberals who voted for Obama and did not agree with all aspects of the platform (healthcare reform or military policies). Would wearing a "Yes, we can" shirt/hat be offensive, then?
That kind of argument seems very reductionist.
Finally, the very format of your question is problematic, for two reasons.
First, making claims that someone is trying to offend by wearing a slogan is what is referred to as "attribution of intention". Instead of having a dialog about it, you're concluding the person's intention. As someone who has often been on the receiving end of that (I'm sure we all have on divisive issues), that is very offensive.
Second, this type of reasoning is what I often call, "From ignorance comes uncertainty." You are indirectly admitting you cannot understand any other reason someone would act in a certain way, and then imply you know the "true" reason.
Usually such statements are phrased as "I cannot think of a good reason X would do it, therefore it must be because of Y".
I'll grant that you did not use this exact template, and if your question really was borne out of curiosity, I apologize for my own "attribution of intent". But I do hope I have given you something to think about on the topic in question.
If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.
If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just categorizing them as stupid). Is this really about politics?
It's not because they're 'conservative', it's just given access to the same available information some conclusions are just weak and it's reasonable to lose respect for people when they hold them.
The mistake is concluding it based on this type of scant information.
You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than the information you gleaned from that hat.
>If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just categorizing them as stupid).
And yet I've worked with a young earth creationist who was the best coder in his team (the rest of whom were not creationists). From my general experiences in life, his example is not much of an outlier.
Science Nobel laureates have believed in stupid things, as did many well known mathematicians of the past. Given that, why would you question his abilities?
Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence.
You mention scientists having stupid beliefs. Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools. Our tools are obviously imperfect; thus, imperfect observations are made and imperfect explanations can form as a result.
Biblical literalists, on the other hand, don't even try to ensure that their beliefs are supported by empirical evidence.
People have argued that this behavior of biblical literalists is limited to issues relating to their religious beliefs only, so as long as their professional responsibilities don't encompass issues relating to their religious beliefs, there's no problem.
Unfortunately, the beliefs of biblical literalists encompass a wide range of issues. If I run a renewable energy company, do I really want to take a chance by hiring a biblical literalist who might now, or someday, believe that his unsubstantiated god wants humans to use fossil fuels[1] or that climate change isn't real because his unsubstantiated god promised to not flood the Earth[2]? No, thanks, I think I'll pass.
[1] http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/20/trumps-epa-chief-charts-ne...
[2] https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/shimkus-cites-genesis...
People in the past did believe stupid things, but it's also a mixture of what information was available to them at the time to reason about. Some ideas that may have been the best option at the time should be discarded today given that we know more. I'd think if you brought those people from the past to today they may discard some of their ideas (though changing your mind is hard).
It's not that a creationist can't be a good programmer - people seem to be able to apply their reasoning abilities selectively and I've met smart religious people that jump through crazy hoops to justify why they're religious. It is a data point against them though and it would reduce my impression of their intelligence.
I think some conclusions are stupid based on the available information. When people hold a lot of stupid conclusions or a few really strongly I doubt their ability to think critically in general.
When someone has a different conclusion than I do, I'm curious about what reasoning lead to it, but often it's not an attempt to understand what's true based on available evidence. It's usually a conclusion they have for other reasons (identity? group association?) and they either can't articulate why they think the way they do or they retroactively come up with stuff that already fits their answer. The conclusion came before the reasoning about it. It's not about figuring out what's true.
This is a problem outside of politics - it's a problem with how our minds work by default and how people think.
Someone can certainly vote for a candidate like Trump and not be pro-discrimination, but that person is saying they are willing to accept discrimination for the sake of the policies they do agree with.
That is certainly their right, but you can't act shocked when the marginalized groups and those who support them have a negative reaction when they find out you support candidates who want to take away their rights.
Unfortunately, NeverTrump conservatives like him are few and far between. Sadly, the majority of conservatives I've encountered have completely sold out their principles to support Trump.
Another point, most of our grandparents were by today's standards homophobes, racists and misogynists, should we be shaming them too? How about people living in isolated parts of the country or other countries where these opinions are still popular? When I was growing up as a kid in Syria, I remember talking to people who were totally into islamism, if it weren't for my tolerant parents, I could be holding the same beliefs today. Here's another reason for not shaming people for their opinions, most of our opinions we hold for accidental geographical or parental reasons. Shaming people for where they were born or who they grew up with has a name for it, what could it be? Discrimination.
But, there are naturally areas where we all agree: guns, some other economic stuff, etc. So those opinions go completely unchallenged, where it'd be healthier to have liberal people to test those opinions.
I think everyone realizes intuitively that there is far more nuance to the world than what we type in a small comment box. I personally don't even have a sufficient vocabulary to constantly describe the nuance -- hedging every phrase in every statement just makes for muddy reading.
Because the US is in the middle of a cold civil war that's heating up fast. Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably effective.
Bankrupting your enemy is mostly effective at further radicalizing them and inspiring violence.
That attitude would make this "cold civil war" a hot war.
Dan Carlin is right [1]. People have completely lost their minds. Whether or not someone has the same political beliefs as you is not an indicator of whether he/she is a good or bad person. This kind of thinking is reductive and scary.
Trump may be a monster, but whatever happened to treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect? Everyone is the end result of a specific upbringing and a specific environment. People don't necessarily vote one way or another out of malice or hate.
[1] http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-317-shades-of-...
1st International Cyber War
What are colleagues allowed to talk about, exactly? If we "just don't talk about politics" the end result will be everyone talking and engaging less on any mildly controversial topic (which now includes "the game last night"), and since this cannot be avoided, they will simply talk and engage less altogether.
I don't think that's acceptable, so I don't think "keep politics out of the workplace" is acceptable.
(And what if you are a journalist, coal miner, wind turbine installer, or any number of professions that is in some way involved with the government or politics, which a non-trivial number of jobs?)
Given this political climate, which isn't changing soon, and given the business need to work together toward common goals, then no, we can't let politics into the workplace. At all. Even if it means that we need to skip talking about the political aspect of last night's game.
Extreme ideologues have ruined it for everyone. This is why we can't have nice things.
I'll talk about emacs and vi instead of politics; what could possibly go wrong?
As a person who tries to uphold gentlemanly behavior, which boils down to trying to make people as comfortable as possible, imagine I found a vi echo chamber, perhaps a vi oriented IRC channel or web discussion board or vim editor marketing team mailing list where in excess of 99% of the people there were avid vi users.
It would be quite rude of me to discuss emacs in their little non-emacs echo chamber. Its simple politeness.
Its interesting that the original social network that being amateur radio had a variety of explicit and assumed codes along the lines of discussion will not involve political or religious topics. Also freemason lodges ban religious and political topics. Any technology that advances enough, eventually bans discussion of politics and religion or descends at absolute best into something like CB radio or graffiti or even worse, the cesspool that is twitter.
In America left wing politics is implicitly a religious belief and right wing politics is explicitly religious (generally Christian) so merely banning individually politics or religion isn't going to permit discussing the other. Also religious belief was arrived it by indoctrination and propaganda not reason or rational thought, therefore no change will occur via reason or rational thought or calm discourse. Presumably that's how the world was centuries ago, leading to the amateur radio code from the (19)10s and ancient freemasonry etc. Everything old is new again...
I suggest these men do the same. Move to Dallas or New York or somewhere where conservatism is a little more appreciated. Move to Denver or Atlanta. Find somewhere that feels like home, where there are other conservative techies. Claiming the victim status as a white man in the most expensive city, in the highest paying industry comes off as a little entitled, at least to me.
People don't really change their minds when you call them a racist, fire them, etc. When I am talking to a liberal who I know wont try to cause problems for me (like getting me fired), I will ask lots of questions.
Why do you believe X? What facts support that opinion? I believe Y because ..., where do you think the flaw in my logic is? Why do you think value A is more important that counter-value B?
It's really depressing that someone such as yourself, who has known what it is to be descriminated against for what you think are reasonable beliefs, would perpetuate the same against others.
If you think someone's views are wrong, then ask them why they think that. At worst, you'll get a better insight into how to point out why they are wrong. At best, you'll have a chance of convincing them that your position is better.
When I meet informed conservatives, I quietly rejoice because it's so interesting to talk to them. One of my best friends is also a "free market" type guy and we get along amazingly well, even when we talk politics. However, I haven't found many educated people who out-and-out support Donald Trump, and those I have found often express very caustic beliefs that get in the way of polite or fulfilling discussions. Hence, I just don't do it. There's a level of "coming to the center" that those people just won't do with me, so it ends up devolving into a series of fallacies that just don't need to happen.
What about not doing it at work, since that is not what anybody is there for?
"Managers and supervisors can now legally require their workers to participate in politics as a condition of employment. For instance, in most states, managers have the legal right to mandate worker attendance at a political rally for a favored candidate—and fire or punish workers who decline to participate."[1]
"On August 14 th 2012, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney visited an Ohio coal mine to give a speech attacking the energy policies of opponent Barack Obama. A campaign stop such as this one might not seem that unusual in the midst of a heated presidential election. But this event was different, as the owners of the coal mine had told their workers that attendance at the rally would be both mandatory and unpaid." [2]
"Private employers can distribute materials that tell all their workers the company's positions on political issues. And if your boss were to send an email urging you to attend a rally for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton this weekend, because electing his favorite candidate is 'essential for the future of the company,' legal experts say he'd be within his rights to do it." [3]
[1] http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-grow...
[2] http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ahertel/files/empmobilpop.p...
[3] http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-boss-politics-at-w...
Its worth noting its not limited solely to one side.
President Obama was quite fiscally conservative.
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_...
Ending quote:
>The bottom line is that the CDC data makes it very difficult to argue that conservatives and liberals share equal blame in the anti-vaccine war. Anti-vaxxers are clearly more associated with the political Left.
I would tend to agree the left's leadership, however, tends to be less anti-science.
To pretend otherwise (to justify murdering it) is just plain denial.
I imagine this is probably how closeted gay people felt for a long time, and still do outside of places like the Bay Area. It's poetic justice. The playing field will probably wobble back and forth for a little while and white conservative men will learn to play by the new rules - claiming victim status is as good a place to start as any.
If there's one thing I recommend everyone to do is just listen to the other side and at least TRY to see their perspective even if you disagree.
