I'm a Republican. Been working in or for valley companies since 1998. Engineering then business. The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized. The left in the valley has become increasingly vocal, from the c-suite down, and I've been reluctant to express my views for fear of retaliation (See Mozilla's ex-CEO.)
The valley isn't a place focused on the innovation and free thinking that gave it a rep as libertarian. It's focused on money and power at an international level and it's found the left worldwide as the most amenable to that path.
Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Benioff, Tim Cook... These are the narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders from almost every dystopian novel or movie the last 100 years - and they are creating the very technology to give themselves real, orwellian, big-brother control, hand-in-hand with governments.
I fear my future, my children's, and their grand-children.
Do you have any proposed solutions to these issues? I'm asking because I can't think of any that aren't extremely liberal in character, like government putting limits on these businesses or affirmative action for conservatives, as Beck discusses in the article.
Perhaps he's wrong but your complaints of being "marginalized" and against the "money and power" of big business don't sound traditionally conservative. The traditional conservative line would be that you should stop complaining. Mark Zuckerberg et al are more talented and deserve the money and power they've attained because they worked harder and smarter than you have. If you would just work harder and smarter you would easily overcome these problems on your own.
And Glenn Beck's "I looked into his eyes..." trope reminds me of George W Bush looking into Putin's soul. Facebook trending topics had/has bias the same way any mainstream newsroom has for the last 60 years - made worse by the fact that it's filled with low-paid 20-something liberal arts majors.
Yet Beck can't say that. He runs a media site. Getting cut off from social networks would be a death sentence. He has to go to Zuckerberg for the publicity and he has to stay positive after the meeting... due to the real possibility of retaliation.
Remember, 1984 was a warning, not a how-to manual.
"Narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders" are something of a universal problem which the 'left' has often campaigned against, in the interest of a more level playing field. Here the US conflation of 'left', 'socialist' and 'liberal' becomes a problem in describing the politics, because while 'liberal' and 'progressive' can reasonably be attached to wealthy men in some circumstances, 'socialist' really can't.
It's also interesting how the "right" have traditionally been in favour of the right of businesses to pursue profits regardless of the negative consequences to others, but now that involves throwing extreme right-wing media under the bus this comes into question. Glenn Beck manages to stick to his principles here.
The media situation is not symmetrical. It's not so much left vs right or even true vs false, it's "well-thought out" vs (there is no nicer way of putting it) "bullshit". The "Views on shape of Earth differ" style of journalism is irresponsible.
If your views are in favour of the repression and marginalisation of others then you will find yourself in the minority in the left coast.
I'm sorry, the right hold some pretty reprehensible views on gay marriage, police brutality, the poor and working class, and women's rights. Then, when they are called on their bullshit all of the sudden they are the victim.
The rest of the world does not apologise if reality has a liberal bias.
>The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized
From a conservative/libertarian outlook... wouldn't that be your problem to solve? Isn't the conservative position that if we just remove big government equality should work itself out?
So you're being marginalized for your views which marginalize other people? (See Mozilla's ex-CEO case in which he donated money towards keeping LGBT people marginalized) Oh, the irony.
The thing that drove me, a lifelong conservative, into the arms of Bernie Sanders; the Republican party (and the conservative group in particular) are so hard core on social issues that are to be blunt, disgusting (things like preventing homosexual marriage and abortion) and completely antithetical to the idea of "keeping government out of things." No I don't like everything the Left wants to do, but I also have no love left for the Bible thumping I'm-ignorant-and-proud-of-it crowd.
I have too many homosexual friends who I know are good people. I have too many friends who had their contraception fail and aren't in any position to raise a child, recognize that, and want to wait to accept abortion. And more and more I'm realizing that the party of "leave us alone" wants the Government involved in way more things than the other one.
I don't know when this happened, I don't know why, but if you want the explanation there it is. You guys bank harder and harder on ignorance and fear every year until now you've got a candidate like Trump, with practically no ideas and nothing to offer except new things to fear.
Your question is probably rhetorical, but it happened because the Republican party decided they needed to bring social conservatives (especially Southern whites disaffected by the Civil Rights Act) into their coalition. See "Southern strategy" [1].
I believe anti-choice specifically was brought into the party platform during the Ford years. Outright homophobia was pretty mainstream until well into the 90s, and wasn't much of a differentiator between the parties. Democrats just soft-pedaled their position while the Republicans, specifically the fundamentalists who had grown in power since the 80s, made AIDS and gay marriage boogeyman issues in the "culture wars" [2].
For the record, both parties are coalitions and involve this kind of compromise between different constituencies (see Dems and organized labor, et al.)
While the question you wanted to answer is a great question to be asking in the era of Trump, that's not the question that Beck was asking.
"What happened to us?" in this context was, "Why are supposedly conservative groups telling Facebook how to run their business, using many of the same tactics and arguments they've objected to when used by their ideological opponents?"
Well, his point is that he thought he was attacking people who wanted a special treatment in life, and now he found himself aligned with people who were doing that exact thing. It wasn't really about being aggressive per se.
He's always been an ultraconservative nutjob and I don't see that changing, but it's refreshing to see someone showing he can see the problems with his own argument and can self-criticize a bit. Tomorrow we'll go back to our scheduled program of people shouting at each other, but can't we happy that today is a good day, for once? :)
I enjoyed this piece a lot. The introspection is real. Also, what the hell is the controversy at the core here? It was never linked referenced. What spawned the meeting?
To pretend or make out that you're some kind of marginalized group, that you're being ignored or exploited or taken advantage of or just not getting what you're supposed to be entitled to, and that you're afraid and worried and unhappy -- it sounds so lame and cheap, and in the end, boring.
Never heared of this guy, but doesn't seem I missed anything.
Boy, you're knocking it out of the park today with the insults and the psychic abilities telling you what other people think. Though it doesn't allow for as much snark, you might consider the idea that people can rethink their views.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines egregiously. If you can't remain civil and avoid name-calling, religious flamewars, and personal attacks, please don't post here, regardless of how strongly you feel or how badly wrong someone else is.
I would frankly be surprised if a majority of the religious right had ever read the Bible front to back or seriously tried to understand the teachings of Jesus, otherwise I don't think you'd see the blatant anti-gay discrimination that you do from them.
Name calling followed by a smiley face is still name calling.
Christians are the dominant majority in this country. Yet some of them won't shut up about being persecuted. I doubt they seriously follow the teachings of jesus christ.
> "If you believe that every life is sacred and has intrinsic value simply for being alive"
Well first of all there are a whole lot of lives that are not sacred and should be ended as quickly as possible, but that's another discussion. No one is intrinsically valuable in my mind, not on a planet with 6+ billion people on it. No matter how special of a snowflake you think you might be we can probably replace you pretty easily.
Secondly, while I support your theory, the reality is that most babies that would be aborted would be born into poverty, bad marriages, split couples, the offspring of rape/molestations, or the best case scenario: a parent that doesn't want them or likely doesn't feel they can support them. I fail to see what achievements lie ahead for that child other than making the same mistakes we've forced their mother to make.
> "I'm also betting that you are an athiest"
Born Lutheran, I'm not as active as my parents but I get around. I have some agnostic leanings but the existential terror of human beings being the things more or less "in charge" forces me to hope to whatever's out there that someone else has the wheel.
Its hilarious how this comment alone exemplifies exactly what he's talking about when he says that conservative voices are being marginalized in silicon valley. We need to make sure we brand the post with his name so us cushy liberals can be protected from these mean and different viewpoints, right?
No, please don't. I wouldn't have read it and despite him taking more than half of the length of the article to get to the point, I was really surprised at what he said.
[+] [-] elgabogringo|10 years ago|reply
The valley isn't a place focused on the innovation and free thinking that gave it a rep as libertarian. It's focused on money and power at an international level and it's found the left worldwide as the most amenable to that path.
Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Benioff, Tim Cook... These are the narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders from almost every dystopian novel or movie the last 100 years - and they are creating the very technology to give themselves real, orwellian, big-brother control, hand-in-hand with governments.
I fear my future, my children's, and their grand-children.
[+] [-] chubot|10 years ago|reply
Those guys probably disagree profoundly with you; it doesn't mean they are evil narcissists out of a dystopian novel.
[+] [-] YPCrumble|10 years ago|reply
Perhaps he's wrong but your complaints of being "marginalized" and against the "money and power" of big business don't sound traditionally conservative. The traditional conservative line would be that you should stop complaining. Mark Zuckerberg et al are more talented and deserve the money and power they've attained because they worked harder and smarter than you have. If you would just work harder and smarter you would easily overcome these problems on your own.
[+] [-] elgabogringo|10 years ago|reply
Yet Beck can't say that. He runs a media site. Getting cut off from social networks would be a death sentence. He has to go to Zuckerberg for the publicity and he has to stay positive after the meeting... due to the real possibility of retaliation.
Remember, 1984 was a warning, not a how-to manual.
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
The US has the Koch brothers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/koch-brothers-media...
"Narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders" are something of a universal problem which the 'left' has often campaigned against, in the interest of a more level playing field. Here the US conflation of 'left', 'socialist' and 'liberal' becomes a problem in describing the politics, because while 'liberal' and 'progressive' can reasonably be attached to wealthy men in some circumstances, 'socialist' really can't.
It's also interesting how the "right" have traditionally been in favour of the right of businesses to pursue profits regardless of the negative consequences to others, but now that involves throwing extreme right-wing media under the bus this comes into question. Glenn Beck manages to stick to his principles here.
And I agree strongly with sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943
The media situation is not symmetrical. It's not so much left vs right or even true vs false, it's "well-thought out" vs (there is no nicer way of putting it) "bullshit". The "Views on shape of Earth differ" style of journalism is irresponsible.
[+] [-] yardie|10 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, the right hold some pretty reprehensible views on gay marriage, police brutality, the poor and working class, and women's rights. Then, when they are called on their bullshit all of the sudden they are the victim.
The rest of the world does not apologise if reality has a liberal bias.
[+] [-] awesomerobot|10 years ago|reply
From a conservative/libertarian outlook... wouldn't that be your problem to solve? Isn't the conservative position that if we just remove big government equality should work itself out?
[+] [-] pj_mukh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specialist|9 years ago|reply
Still keen to hear which of your views have been marginalized.
[+] [-] perseusprime11|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arnvald|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FussyZeus|10 years ago|reply
The thing that drove me, a lifelong conservative, into the arms of Bernie Sanders; the Republican party (and the conservative group in particular) are so hard core on social issues that are to be blunt, disgusting (things like preventing homosexual marriage and abortion) and completely antithetical to the idea of "keeping government out of things." No I don't like everything the Left wants to do, but I also have no love left for the Bible thumping I'm-ignorant-and-proud-of-it crowd.
I have too many homosexual friends who I know are good people. I have too many friends who had their contraception fail and aren't in any position to raise a child, recognize that, and want to wait to accept abortion. And more and more I'm realizing that the party of "leave us alone" wants the Government involved in way more things than the other one.
I don't know when this happened, I don't know why, but if you want the explanation there it is. You guys bank harder and harder on ignorance and fear every year until now you've got a candidate like Trump, with practically no ideas and nothing to offer except new things to fear.
I won't belong to the party of fear.
[+] [-] slowernet|10 years ago|reply
I believe anti-choice specifically was brought into the party platform during the Ford years. Outright homophobia was pretty mainstream until well into the 90s, and wasn't much of a differentiator between the parties. Democrats just soft-pedaled their position while the Republicans, specifically the fundamentalists who had grown in power since the 80s, made AIDS and gay marriage boogeyman issues in the "culture wars" [2].
For the record, both parties are coalitions and involve this kind of compromise between different constituencies (see Dems and organized labor, et al.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#1990s
[+] [-] twoodfin|10 years ago|reply
"What happened to us?" in this context was, "Why are supposedly conservative groups telling Facebook how to run their business, using many of the same tactics and arguments they've objected to when used by their ideological opponents?"
[+] [-] Chris2048|10 years ago|reply
This is an argument for killing it off then?
[+] [-] pigpaws|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okket|10 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732166 (10 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732430 (2 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11734973 (1 comment)
[+] [-] zelias|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toyg|10 years ago|reply
He's always been an ultraconservative nutjob and I don't see that changing, but it's refreshing to see someone showing he can see the problems with his own argument and can self-criticize a bit. Tomorrow we'll go back to our scheduled program of people shouting at each other, but can't we happy that today is a good day, for once? :)
[+] [-] hellbanner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oarsinsync|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmeredith|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oarsinsync|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swehner|10 years ago|reply
Never heared of this guy, but doesn't seem I missed anything.
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perseusprime11|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamparithi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jorgecastillo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elgabogringo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanx435|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11738048 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] mikestew|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FussyZeus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanx435|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] thatswrong0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
Christians are the dominant majority in this country. Yet some of them won't shut up about being persecuted. I doubt they seriously follow the teachings of jesus christ.
[+] [-] FussyZeus|10 years ago|reply
Well first of all there are a whole lot of lives that are not sacred and should be ended as quickly as possible, but that's another discussion. No one is intrinsically valuable in my mind, not on a planet with 6+ billion people on it. No matter how special of a snowflake you think you might be we can probably replace you pretty easily.
Secondly, while I support your theory, the reality is that most babies that would be aborted would be born into poverty, bad marriages, split couples, the offspring of rape/molestations, or the best case scenario: a parent that doesn't want them or likely doesn't feel they can support them. I fail to see what achievements lie ahead for that child other than making the same mistakes we've forced their mother to make.
> "I'm also betting that you are an athiest"
Born Lutheran, I'm not as active as my parents but I get around. I have some agnostic leanings but the existential terror of human beings being the things more or less "in charge" forces me to hope to whatever's out there that someone else has the wheel.
[+] [-] swagv|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NOSHSHNACKERS|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] specialist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 010a|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robotnoises|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellbanner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noer|10 years ago|reply