So... some apparently tiny minority of activists --- in low-tier positions, no less -- is forcing policies of tech companies that they'd otherwise never choose for market reasons, or for reasons of values intentionally arrived at by high-level management.
That's either quite a coup... or an unlikely explanation. Possibly even a motivated one designed to work the refs, so to speak.
You know what's much more likely? That any political compasses involved in low-level decisions made at most tech companies are distributed in about the way that staff is. And that you could expect that to be normally distributed unless managing staff skewed it with an emphasis on some value. Which is another way of saying the composition of the company reflects management values. And since market incentives probably still matter, and shape management values, whatever we're talking about in general terms here that's is going on at these businesses, it's probably not just a function of a minority of activists.
> to the point of people yelling to have him mobbed and beaten in the street.
Welp, free speech, you know. Guess there's nothing we can do about that. If we did, we'd simply be using force to silence those people, and it really sounds like you're categorically against that, right?
> it is not the brand, but the behavior, the semantics, which is important.
Brand is semantics. If one is important, the other is.
So... what's a nazi? For that matter, what's "far left"?
> Who uses violence, intimidation, and vandalism to silence opposition and for political gain?
In spite of some of my challenges to the GP, they had some answers to this question you don't seem to have fully processed.
> Who dresses up in the same clothes, like "gang colors," and uses anonymity to get away with doing the above?
I can think of several answers that check at least 2 boxes out of 3 there, maybe even all three to the extent that bureaucracy confers anonymity. What's yours?
> We need to be skeptical of this authoritarianism masquerading as "justice" and "openness."
We also need to be skeptical of those who offer an pretense of concern of vigilance towards authoritarianism, but oddly seem only interested in looking one way -- "this" authoritarianism. Which, since it apparently consists of the tyranny of justice and the threat of forced openness, is likely about as consistent in its conception as the threat of far left capitalists.
That's either quite a coup... or an unlikely explanation. Possibly even a motivated one designed to work the refs, so to speak.
You know what's much more likely? That any political compasses involved in low-level decisions made at most tech companies are distributed in about the way that staff is. And that you could expect that to be normally distributed unless managing staff skewed it with an emphasis on some value. Which is another way of saying the composition of the company reflects management values. And since market incentives probably still matter, and shape management values, whatever we're talking about in general terms here that's is going on at these businesses, it's probably not just a function of a minority of activists.
> to the point of people yelling to have him mobbed and beaten in the street.
Welp, free speech, you know. Guess there's nothing we can do about that. If we did, we'd simply be using force to silence those people, and it really sounds like you're categorically against that, right?
> it is not the brand, but the behavior, the semantics, which is important.
Brand is semantics. If one is important, the other is.
So... what's a nazi? For that matter, what's "far left"?
> Who uses violence, intimidation, and vandalism to silence opposition and for political gain?
In spite of some of my challenges to the GP, they had some answers to this question you don't seem to have fully processed.
> Who dresses up in the same clothes, like "gang colors," and uses anonymity to get away with doing the above?
I can think of several answers that check at least 2 boxes out of 3 there, maybe even all three to the extent that bureaucracy confers anonymity. What's yours?
> We need to be skeptical of this authoritarianism masquerading as "justice" and "openness."
We also need to be skeptical of those who offer an pretense of concern of vigilance towards authoritarianism, but oddly seem only interested in looking one way -- "this" authoritarianism. Which, since it apparently consists of the tyranny of justice and the threat of forced openness, is likely about as consistent in its conception as the threat of far left capitalists.