Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#371

Post by eimai134 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #226
lern_too_spel wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others There's nothing that objectively makes a hamburger better than another. It's all subjective, just as views are subjective. Some people like bread a lot, so they may want a really thick bun which could be overpowering to another person. Some people are vegetarian, while others cringe in disgust at a black bean burger. It doesn't make those hamburgers a…

This is very true. I knew a guy who only ate fast food, and he could not (or would not) eat at better restaurants. He simply did not like anything but the fast food hamburgers.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#372

Post by caseysoftware »

rmxt wrote: post #353
caseysoftware wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line I quoted says "doesn't like" not "hate" but by equating the two and then banning "hate speech" you are succeeding in your goal of shutting down ideas and discussion. Well done.

Distilling one's "like" of a person down to their sexual preference [or skin color/religion/take on abortion/etc.] isn't exactly the best way to promote ideas and discussion, either. I am not sure if someone saying "I don't like gay people" is the best person to defend in the debate of "what is free speech?", which is what it seems like you are trying to sarcastically do here. Note, this coworker in question didn't s…

Yes.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#373

Post by [deleted] »

yawaramin wrote: post #288
Pyxl101 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 companie…

The problem with starting these hypothetical-filled discussions is that they're not helpful. People can and have been positing many hypotheses about the pipeline issue in tech (and of course many other issues) and the discussions have been mostly heat and very little light. What would be helpful, is if you would post actual objective findings--studies, analyses, etc. Cold hard facts. Otherwise you're just adding to t…

[deleted]

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#374

Post by sanderjd »

snowwrestler wrote: post #349
frotak wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the thrust of the argument entirely. The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding "whether or not the economic collapse was caused by poor black people": "I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest, and isn't it…

I think the parent is on to something about the implications of the argument, although it is not how the post's author would look at it, of course. To really understand an argument, one has to start with its subject. Are we talking about viewpoints or people? What the blog post author focuses on is people: > Me: Now lets try it for politics. How many of you would say you are on the right politically, or that you are…

> We want citizens who will speak up for what they know is right, even if they know they will face trouble.

I thought your comment was really good, but I don't think this conclusion is quite right. The problem is that lots of different people "know" that lots of different things are "right". In my life experience (read: I have no data on this), we don't seem to have the problem that not enough people will "speak up for what they know is right" because they fear trouble, we instead have the problem that not enough people are willing to challenge themselves on what they "know" is "right".

Sorry for all the scare quotes, but my point is that the entire idea that people can know that things are right, and then speak up for those things, is off-base. Certainly, it's a good thing to have a sense for what you think is right, and to be able to speak up for those things, but it's a much better and much harder thing to be open to being convinced that you are incorrect. That's what I don't see much of in our society, and what all schools, and universities in particular, should do a better of imparting to their students! Instead of teaching people to better manage their anxiety about speaking against perceived social norms, we would be better off improving peoples' skills of hearing things they disagree with, and of structuring their own arguments such that they don't drown out that disagreement (for instance, the all too familiar tactic of yelling and/or ranting continuously).

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#375

Post by karmacondon »

lumberjack wrote: post #25

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

So if Common Joe's views on gender can be summarized as "Women should stay in the kitchen", is it elitist to not take that idea seriously? It has nothing to do with people's relative social or intellectual standing, and no one should have to bring themselves down to anyone else's level. Bad ideas are bad ideas, and should be labelled as such.

It's hard to tell if someone making a controversial statement is doing so to learn and participate in discussion, or if they're just trolling. And with ol' Common Joe the latter can be just as likely as the former. So sometimes people err on the side of caution, and prefer to avoid outright controversial topics that are difficult to discuss and articulate. I don't think it's an issue of anyone looking down on anyone else.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#376

Post by socialist_coder »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #70
lumberjack wrote: post #25

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

> these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. Might as well call them extreme-left, which is just as bad as extreme-right and the extreme ideologies that come with it. The left / right spectrum aren't polar opposites either, but it tends to be horseshoe-shaped, so you'll find some ideas that are dangerously close to those on the other side (#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging. S…

I don't think your political leaning has anything to do with being a crybaby who thinks they are entitled to live in a "safe space".

You can easily be an extreme liberal or conservative and still tolerate other views.

This has nothing to do with their politics.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#377

Post by remarkEon »

moistgorilla wrote: post #279
thomnottom wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I can say is that I and my friends in the NYC and Philly region working (mostly) in pharmaceutical and financial industries do not generally experience this. But obviously that would be anecdotal.

> financial Isn't finance the place where being clean shaven is almost necessary if you want to succeed?

-> almost necessary

Required. I'm in graduate school right now and you won't get a call back for 2nd rounds if you have a beard. It's some sort of irrational proxy for discipline.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#378

Post by spaced_out »

cortesoft wrote: post #306
1812Overture wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a history class that can't make a strong argument that the holocaust wasn't a hoax and a law class that can't make the argument that rape victims exist are in VERY serious trouble. Being able to debunk such looney claims is very valuable for students so they should develop these skills not be shielded from exposure to them.

What about someone who argues "Rape victims don't matter because they are just women, and women's feelings are not important" That isn't something that can be argued against with facts. You can't present evidence to counter this, because they didn't use facts to come to the opinion. As the saying goes, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" There are a certain class of opinion…

>That isn't something that can be argued against with facts.

Yes it can. In the context of a law class, there's tons of laws which clearly state that rape is a crime, so it clearly does matter. That's just as factually incorrect as saying "Fraud does not matter because suckers aren't important." You can't just say: "_______ isn't important." in a law class.

If I were a history professor and someone tried to bring up Holocaust denial in my class, I'd first explain why it's absurd to try and argue that all that evidence is somehow fake, which then shows that anyone who tries to defend this position either:

1. Has legitimately no idea what they're talking about.

2. Has willfully taken up the agenda of bending the truth to support Nazi-ism.

I wouldn't shout them down though. That's counter-productive.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#379

Post by ta0o0o0 »

kafkaesq wrote: post #210
ta0o0o0 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And others feel that a person who can make this statement: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ ...I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain. ... and who has never even been accused of discrimination, harassment, or abuse…

Eich's statement in that posting is indeed a valid, mitigating factor in his favor. He could have done more, by addressing the issue of the TV ads directly. By not doing so, people had reason to believe he was sidestepping that key issue (and that he may not really understand why people were offended by those ads).

What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed.

[1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#380

Post by remarkEon »

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #50
kod wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, social norms that - you're not allowed to show emotion (unless it's anger) - you must get all of your emotional needs met through first your mother, and then your girlfriend / wife are what creates dysfunctional men.

It could be both; that when young men have "traditional masculinity" exposed as bullshit (which I agree with) and pulled out from under them, they have difficulty understanding themselves in a world without such a framing device.

What is "traditional masculinity" and why is it bullshit? I ask because it seems this is going to end up as some kind of no-true-scotsman.
Post reply on HN