4 ms·

I think there is probably something to this explanation. One reason I've seen for why women prefer not to go into start ups, for example, is that it's more of a

I think there is probably something to this explanation. One reason I've seen for why women prefer not to go into start ups, for example, is that it's more of a high risk, high reward, gamble - which is typically more interesting to men. Likewise, ideologically conservative people are likely disposed not to make such risks. The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Do we have representation of women/conservatives/whatever in proportion to demographics?" Instead, the question should be "Are we treating people unfairly?" For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems.

abusoufiyan 9y ago
>For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems. They aren't equal things though. The latter is basically you promoting the idea that people of different backgrounds aren't as welcome in the workplace. Especially if your workplace hires anyone on an H1-B or on any other kind of visa, or anyone from Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the other Muslim ban countries. I get that in terms of an election they are both equally valid political candidates. But the actual substance of both pieces of clothing is different. One is easily going to divide any workplace where you have employees of foreign nationalities or minorities and the other isn't. There's a reason why what you expect from both scenarios makes sense.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Where I work a lot of people are on H1-B type visas. At least I assume they are. Probably between one third and one half of employees are foreign born. On the one hand, I get what you're saying. My MAGA hat might be objectionable to a lot of coworkers. On the other hand, I also think things like "I wonder if the large portion of foreign born workers are effectively suppressing my wages" because they increase supply of labor. I can't help but wonder if I'd be making more money, or higher up the chain, or just relatively better off without H1-B visas. And then, it's interesting to connect the dots - the candidates who want to keep importing labor, and therefore suppressing wages, those candidates are fine to support. But if you support a candidate who wants to import less labor, which might help current labor class members while hurting the big companies - well then you're a toxic, racist, jerk, etc. Weird that the big companies think that way - right? I also understand that my reasoning is selfish. But, I pay taxes. My parents paid taxes. We support the organization that is the US government - shouldn't that organization be working for our benefit and not the benefit of foreign laborers and big companies? I think if one political opinion is banned, then both should be.

abusoufiyan 9y ago

>For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems. They aren't equal things though. The latter is basically you promoting the idea that people of different backgrounds aren't as welcome in the workplace. Especially if your workplace hires anyone on an H1-B or on any other kind of visa, or anyone from Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the other Muslim ban countries. I get that in terms of an election they are both equally valid political candidates. But the actual substance of both pieces of clothing is different. One is easily going to divide any workplace where you have employees of foreign nationalities or minorities and the other isn't. There's a reason why what you expect from both scenarios makes sense.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
Where I work a lot of people are on H1-B type visas. At least I assume they are. Probably between one third and one half of employees are foreign born. On the one hand, I get what you're saying. My MAGA hat might be objectionable to a lot of coworkers. On the other hand, I also think things like "I wonder if the large portion of foreign born workers are effectively suppressing my wages" because they increase supply of labor. I can't help but wonder if I'd be making more money, or higher up the chain, or just relatively better off without H1-B visas. And then, it's interesting to connect the dots - the candidates who want to keep importing labor, and therefore suppressing wages, those candidates are fine to support. But if you support a candidate who wants to import less labor, which might help current labor class members while hurting the big companies - well then you're a toxic, racist, jerk, etc. Weird that the big companies think that way - right? I also understand that my reasoning is selfish. But, I pay taxes. My parents paid taxes. We support the organization that is the US government - shouldn't that organization be working for our benefit and not the benefit of foreign laborers and big companies? I think if one political opinion is banned, then both should be.