We should all strive to keep an open mind, especially to ideas contrary to our own.
But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences.
For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community:
* Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.”
* Heresy: “All entrepreneurs in the US owe much their success to past government spending on infrastructure and education, so they should be personally taxed at high rates to repay their enormous debt to society.”
* Heresy: “High redistribution of wealth via government spending is necessary for sustaining economic growth.”
* Heresy: “Silicon Valley is an exclusionary club, not a meritocracy.”
Proclaiming any of these things, say, at a dinner party with startup CEOs, is socially equivalent to jumping on top of the table, pulling your pants down, and passing gas. In fact, the latter may be more socially acceptable -- it's less threatening to the startup zeitgeist.
The ultimate heresy for SV culture is genuinely attempting to address even the possibility that the world is worse off because of their existence.
Of course any answer to that question has a lot of nuance to unpack. But SV culture I don’t think would even accept the premise that this question has valid answers on both sides.
There is nothing brave or heretic about holding those views in Silicon Valley. SV skews quite left even though most people's actions don't match words. You'll find a high degree of acceptance of these views at all levels in SV including tech CEOs who worship at the altar of pseudo-socialism.
Sometimes, you will get nuanced pushback (since these are very old ideas), but I've never seen a person cancelled in SV for holding the suburban socialist/communist ideologies that you listed. You are more in danger if being labelled alt-right if you argue against these things.
None of these views are socialist or communist - at most, they are social democratic, which is a very common and moderate position outside the US (and was also common in the US before the 80s).
* Meritocracy isn't, because merit cannot be easily measured and it is trivial for successful bad actors to build moats that prevent anyone else getting as valued as them.
* Higher economic growth can be achieved by investing in education, but nobody would do that, because it's (rightfully) illegal to sell yourself into slavery in exchange for education.
* Regulatory capture sucks and is super hard to work around. It should be combated instead of being relied on as a future moat against competitors.
I wonder what would be his reaction to someone trying to unionize in one of his shop. He would probably not call that cancel culture but right to work.
> For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community:
You're basically just saying it is heresy to be moderately left-wing in Silicon Valley.
Which I don't doubt is true, even if I hope it is not quite as dire. Just wanted to point out the connection.
EDIT: though if we're talking "in front of CEO", that might be like talking about French Revolution in front of a monarch, or mentioning Mao in front of landlord, so I can understand why the CEO would not like it.
1), 2), and 4) are not particularly inherently or exclusively left-wing positions. 1) and 2) have been popular with some Republicans (and republicans) in the 20th century, as well as many traditional and Third Way liberals.
4) is extremely contemporary, but it's definitely a common populist right-wing position these days also.
I bet you could say those things (and other provocative things) at a dinner party with other CEOs. It is, after all, what they do at Davos: fling socialist talking points at those immensely wealthy, smiling, capitalist faces.
But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences.
For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community:
* Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.”
* Heresy: “All entrepreneurs in the US owe much their success to past government spending on infrastructure and education, so they should be personally taxed at high rates to repay their enormous debt to society.”
* Heresy: “High redistribution of wealth via government spending is necessary for sustaining economic growth.”
* Heresy: “Silicon Valley is an exclusionary club, not a meritocracy.”
Proclaiming any of these things, say, at a dinner party with startup CEOs, is socially equivalent to jumping on top of the table, pulling your pants down, and passing gas. In fact, the latter may be more socially acceptable -- it's less threatening to the startup zeitgeist.