The Yale Problem Begins in High School

You seem to have bought into fair and balanced horseshit. There are certain views that are morally superior to others, just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others. Taking rights away from other people loosely based on ancient superstitions (the Bible says nothing about allowing gays to marry but says a lot about how to punish them -- the only reason Eich and his ilk aren't politically promoting the punishments is that our secular society would rightfully come down even harder on them then) is not something that should be a protected viewpoint, just as promoting the idea that Jews (as a race) should not have property rights is something that should not be tolerated.

Had Eich done something that was morally neutral, everybody would have stood up for his right to do that, as well they should. That's not what he did though.

>That is a direct contradiction. You acknowledge as much right after. What's even the point of writing this and posting it?

Umm... to SHOW that it's a contradiction. To demonstrate the absurdity of making statements that betray one's behavior. It's easier to know how dumb you're being if you see someone else doing it.

Let me rephrase this for you.

I don't care about anime. When someone throws an anime conference, I don't care. I won't be going. What I'm not going to do is jump on the internet and start saying "I have a problem with anime conferences!"

I might have a problem with, say, a Nazi conference; their goals and premises are fundamentally objectionable to me. What is fundamentally objectionable about a women in tech conference? More women in tech?

> >Have you considered the possibility that you are actually wrong about what you believe? > Have you?

Yes. All the time. You see, I'm not complaining about people ostracizing me for my stupid ideas. They are free to do that, and I deserve it when it happens. That's how stupid ideas die.

Bingo. Let's say that I wanted to argue that -- just for the sake of argument, not necessarily as a true belief -- that discrimination is not a significant problem in tech hiring with respect to diversity, and that the key problem is that there aren't qualified candidates from special-interest-group-in-question applying in the first place, and so the majority of the problem is upstream when you consider tech companies.

Is that something I'm allowed to say, even as a hypothetical? It seems like anyone saying that could be viciously attacked. Yet if we want to reason about the world objectively we need to consider all shades of truth and possibility, not blindly latch on to one particular idea and walk on eggshells while talking about it. The victimhood culture is completely stifling to any kind of discussion about such things.

Now, maybe we shouldn't have discussion about that on HN. I don't know. A lot of them have sure been interesting though. For example, I've found contributions by yummyfajitas particularly thought-provoking to read. He frequently challenges the "popular wisdom" and gets downvoted for it despite making what seem to me like reasonable, fair, respectful arguments that go against the popular activist narrative and victimhood culture. I don't know where I really land on these issues, but I've not been satisfied that there is adequate thoughtful analysis of them in mainstream culture (even arguably on HN).

I am hoping that this victimhood thing, and that attempts at social justice by creating privileges for special interest groups, are phenomena that are ultimately temporary as our society evolves to a greater level of egalitarianism and liberty. That is, I hope that what we're seeing now are the growing pains as old prejudice is put down, as we as society we eventually move past this (in whatever subdivision you care to name). We've seen huge strides for equality in recent years such as with recent US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. But it feels like for every two positive strides, we take a step back with victimhood culture or by fighting injustice with more injustice (e.g., changes to Mormon Church doctrine on gays, to pick a totally random example).

>What I can't stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if you focus on one group, then you are actively not focusing on another.

That's the problem though. Sometimes you need to give special attention to a group to ensure that their abilities and accomplishments are seen. You may not personally have this problem, but there are members of the "old guard" that do. I surmise solely from this comment that you do your best to ensure that members of your team are the best regardless of physical differences. Again, this is why you aren't inherently the problem.

The problem is people like a professor I had. He has published papers, an incredible work history, and he has rubbed elbows with a few CS people renown for their work. He made off-handed comments like, "First exam is in two weeks. Ladies, please don't wait until the day before to cram." He probably doesn't mean anything malicious by the comment, but that its an off-putting comment nonetheless. Another parallel would be the military. There are lots of females in the military, but one of the gross sentiments among males when encountering staff NCO females is, "How many people did she have to blow to pick up staff?" It's comments like those, some of the "bro culture", and general "CS is for guys" attitude that gives reason for women's conferences.

The majority is always in focus on a grand scale. It's easy to feel like certain people are getting special treatment when Group-X Conference specifically targets a group. The purpose, though admittedly they can miss the mark, is to avoid systematic exclusion or opposition that prevents entry or ignores their contribution.