The Yale Problem Begins in High School • Hacker News Board

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#391

Post by lern_too_spel » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #262

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…

I think you're missing the point of the story. The point is, that unless you're tolerating something that you consider morally wrong or unethical, you can't really claim you're tolerant.

You're missing the point of my reply. Tolerance isn't good for tolerance's sake, and claiming that tolerating something that actively harms people is the same as tolerating something that is morally neutral is just fair and balanced horseshit that leads to Jews losing property rights and Gays losing rights in the state constitution.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#392

Post by Nadya » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:09 PM UTC

thomnottom wrote: post #206

Retric wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one thing it lowers the bar before people think your indigent. Depending on industry it can often make it harder to find a job. On the whole it's generally viewed as a low status symbol. Granted this is mostly from the east coast of the US (DC). And having a styled bearded seems to make a large difference.

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.

This is going to sound worse than I mean it to be, but I'm not familiar with NYC.

Is Philly a "hipster" region?

A full (groomed) beard in SanFran will be seen completely differently than full (groomed) beard in Los Angeles. You'll fit right in with the SF hipsters but you'll be seen as a bum/idiot in LA.

There is a drastic difference in perception against say.. the Dollar Beard Club [0] and "manly-men" beards. The difference in perception is a source of comedy [1].

The source of this perception difference is that people "allowed" to grow beards for work were/are typically blue-collar workers. Blue-collar work is associated with those of lesser intelligence (sorry to any hard working blue-collars out there....) while white-collar professions are seen as "more intelligent" and have typically required being clean shaven. As it follows, facial hair = blue collar worker = less intelligent. That's just how things are currently.

Obviously this is changing, but more-so in "hipster" areas where people do white-collar work and grow their beards out. As the requirement/stigma against facial hair dies out.

[0] https://www.dollarbeardclub.com/

[1] http://www.primalunleashed.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/...

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#393

Post by pasquinelli » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:09 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #304

kelukelugames wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm happy that he's not harassing my other co workers.

Saying "I don't like you" is not harassment.

yeah, but if he felt free to say publicly that he didn't like them because they're homosexual, then he might feel free to harass them, as has been the custom.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#394

Post by venomsnake » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #386

venomsnake wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea what secular means do you? Admit it. The Eastern Bloc was extremely secular. That doesn't prevented it from being quite oppressive.

Nobody is saying that the Eastern Bloc was secularly moral.

Because there is no such thing as secular morality. And morality is mostly fiction anyway. Usually determined by who won the last major war.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#395

Post by CM30 » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

Pyxl101 wrote: post #190

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reason I keep two HN accounts - I fear that any political comments I make here could jeopardize my professional life (about which I contribute fairly often). Online, that's a fairly easy thing to manage. In real life, it means I really have to walk on eggshells a lot, and I seldom participate in voicing my opinions (or supporting certain causes) in which I'd otherwise participate, solely out of fear. In m…

I do this too. I found it almost impossible to post on my account under my own name, on any topic about psychology, politics, economics, or diversity because I am too afraid of what I've said being taken out of context later, or used against me in ways I can't anticipate now. I found myself frequently writing a post, only to delete it shortly afterward, worrying that it was somehow too risky. In today's climate, you…

Sites with anonymous posting features already exist. It's an addon you can get for XenForo, and it's been installed on quite a few internet forums.

For example;

https://xenforo.com/community/resources/bd-anonymous-posting...

But we need something similar on sites like Hacker News and Reddit as well.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#396

Post by oconnore » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

flopto wrote: post #301

ams6110 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can reject (or at least question) the premise.

Do you mean the premise that the patriarchy exists?

Perhaps the premise that the school's actions successfully (does the policy work?), appropriately (is the policy ethical?), and accurately (does the policy have negative side effects?) counters that ideology.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#397

Post by ps4fanboy » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #363

ps4fanboy wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concede that point to you, however certain types of violent crime are easier to avoid.

Avoiding committing crime and avoiding being incarcerated for crime are not the same thing. (The first may help in the second, but just as committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to assure incarceration for it, avoiding committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid incarceration for it. It is frequently argued that it is both more necessary and less sufficient for blacks to avoid crim…

Its hard to be incarcerated for murder without someone actualy being murdered. Therefore the most effective way to avoid incarceration for murder is to stop murdering. People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#398

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:16 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #112

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…

The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.

Looks like they are winning on university campuses, and there is a counter-movement led by Trump appealing to non-college-educated whites. Many of the people supporting Trump cite "saying things other people aren't willing to say" as their reason for supporting him.

These seem to be the two extremes driving political discourse in the USA right now.

The "Oh My God We Must Punish You for Saying Anything We Suspect of Maybe Possibly Being Construed by Some as Racist/Sexist" crowd, and "I'm Going to Say Racist/Sexist Things Constantly, and You Can't Stop Me" crowd.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#399

Post by kelukelugames » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:18 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #304

kelukelugames wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm happy that he's not harassing my other co workers.

Saying "I don't like you" is not harassment.

Does HN really think telling a person that you don't like them because of orientation/gender/race/religion doesn't contribute to a hostile work environment? That's kind of disturbing.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#400

Post by lern_too_spel » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

slapshot wrote: post #320

lern_too_spel wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secular morals. Owning slaves obviously doesn't pass the test. As a secular person, your main purpose is to live a long healthy life because that's all there is -- secular people don't get brownie points in the afterlife for the bodycount of heathens they've racked up. You will live a longer life if you live in a society of educated people who can do the science to keep you healthy and don't want to kill you (because…

> Owning slaves obviously doesn't pass the test. You're at best begging the question here. In the South there were (horribly wrong) people who honestly and truly believed (incorrectly) that not only was it morally permissible to own slaves, but that it was morally necessary. They (wrongly, racistly) believed that the only way the "African race" could be saved from "savagery" was to be in captivity. This argument is c…

Revisionism with some sloppy relativism mixed in. For you to believe your argument, you must honestly believe that at some point in the future, it will be secularly moral to remove rights for gays, remove property rights from racial Jews, enslave blacks, and conquer, kill, and rape.

The truth is that nobody believed it was morally right to keep slaves who wasn't benefiting from it and using your type of relativism to sloppily justify it to themselves.