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

On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#361

Post by ameister14 »

RangerScience wrote: post #358
ameister14 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how affirmative action works. Using your example, for most of the population, there is no detraction from their score. It only comes into effect if you have +1 and they have 0 or +1, and it becomes you with +1 and them with +2. If you had +10 and they had 0, you would stay at +10 and they would go to +2, taking the place of someone else that only had +1 and leaving you alone. For you in this case it isn't…

We're using different notation systems. I'm thinking "modifier to the dice roll", you're thinking "score". This is making it real hard to understand what you're saying. What is your understanding of how AA works?

Ah, I see. As I understand it, AA usually comes into play when there is little separating two candidates. Most other qualities are the same or the historically advantaged candidate is only slightly better than the disadvantaged one.

To counter this historical disadvantage, the candidate possessing it is given additional 'points' which push them beyond the other. All other things being equal or close to equal, this becomes the tie-breaker.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#362

Post by andkon »

ameister14 wrote: post #353
andkon wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

Exactly. It would be because he expressed the wrong opinions. If he expressed the correct opinions, he would face no backlash. I do honestly get what you're saying - nobody is going to want to work with that guy. However, if he possessed the opinions and did not voice them, he would have been fine. So, it's not because he has these opinions that is the problem, simply that he expressed them.

I actually don't say that. I say that he should be fired because he has - not simply that he expressed - abhorrent opinions. It's an unfortunate epistemic reality that we don't know many peoples views until they explicitly put them to paper, but the epistemic issue doesn't cloud the moral one: he believes morally wrong things.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#363

Post by tptacek »

rhapsodic wrote: post #179

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them. I think if google…

Why is it interesting to you that one side of this debate doesn't feel free to express itself? This debate has that in common with plenty of other debates, from the legitimacy of ISIS to the criminality of child pornography --- both of which are debates that have happened in some form on HN, if you think I'm just cherry picking. Sometimes these dynamics form simply because there's a clear right answer, and we're repulsed by the implication of the wrong answer.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#364

Post by merdreubu »

PrimalDual wrote: post #282

When I first read the manifesto, It sounded like a regurgitation of Jordan Peterson's content. After being immersed in his lectures I found it very hard to contradict his points not just because of his eloquence but also because of his method for vetting ideas. I am very glad that his stuff has gained so much popularity because I may finally find counterpoints stick against his arguments.

There's also a fair amount of Jonathan Haidt influence.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#365

Post by mnm1 »

thescribe wrote: post #320
mnm1 wrote: post #138

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they are, are feeling entitled to somet…

I agree as long as your ideas are equally mocked. Otherwise your position boils down to "No one should be able to disagree with me as long as I say the topic is sensitive"

It's up to others how much they mock my ideas. No one can guarantee equality in the mocking, but yes all people should be free to mock, disagree, or respond however they wish to my ideas.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#367

Post by ameister14 »

andkon wrote: post #362
ameister14 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It would be because he expressed the wrong opinions. If he expressed the correct opinions, he would face no backlash. I do honestly get what you're saying - nobody is going to want to work with that guy. However, if he possessed the opinions and did not voice them, he would have been fine. So, it's not because he has these opinions that is the problem, simply that he expressed them.

I actually don't say that. I say that he should be fired because he has - not simply that he expressed - abhorrent opinions. It's an unfortunate epistemic reality that we don't know many peoples views until they explicitly put them to paper, but the epistemic issue doesn't cloud the moral one: he believes morally wrong things.

Are you implying that his opinions prevent him from working with women in a general sense, then? I understand where you would conclude that but I have no evidence of it so can't come to that conclusion myself. The only thing I can see is that if someone expressed those opinions, women wouldn't want to work with them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people having bad or morally repugnant opinions. I have a problem with them acting on these opinions where it effects others.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#368

Post by dragonwriter »

generic_user wrote: post #275
warcher wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is increasingly my concern-- There really seems to be a prevailing opinion that racism and sexism are just fine when directed towards white men. You can drag a white guy for pretty much any societal ill you like on the internet these days, and while there are some pretty great points to be made with respect to blaming a lot of modern society's problems on its principal architects (old white dudes), this is no wa…

>> We're currently suffering through four years of self-imposed punishment as a result of being a bunch of judgmental assholes in pursuit of a goal that any reasonable human would accept as self-evident-- that people deserve to be treated fairly and without prejudice, no matter their race, sex, gender identity, et cetera. If leftists/liberals wanted everyone to be treated fairly without prejudice of their race or sex…

> If leftists/liberals wanted everyone to be treated fairly without prejudice of their race or sex

Which they do.

> then they would not continually push for the expansion and entrenchment of race and sex based affirmative action programs

They would continually push for the recalibration of them, which may include expansion in some areas.

> which deliberately exclude people from employment opportunities, scholarships, networking opportunities and many other essential resources.

That is the opposite of what AA programs do; AA programs address pre-existing structural exclusion.

> If you abandon the goal of equality of opportunity as the left has for the more dubious goal of equality of outcomes

Equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes are not opposed goals, and the left hasn't abandoned the former for the latter. The left, OTOH, recognized that the absence of the latter causes the absence of the former (outcomes at t0 define opportunities at t1; one of the most important parts of outcomes are the opportunities that they create) and so in the absence of equality of outcomes, corrective measures are necessary to create equality of opportunity, and those measures are in many cases going to involve moving toward equality of outcomes, both in direct nature and indirect effect.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#369

Post by hncens0rship2 »

gjjrfcbugxbhf wrote: post #175
hncens0rship wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SV/YC culture is extremely toxic, and people hate having that pointed out to their faces. edit: sv/yc are toxic for how they actively shame outsider opinions, then headhunt the individuals who put said opinions forward. from sama's what i heard from trump supporters, "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried a…

It is interesting how the grandchild responses to the responses to this post have been flag killed...

Predictable is the word I'd use. Oh well, I just hope people don't assume that actual conversations on politics happen here. Right wing perspectives are silenced then ganged by strawmen when they can't reply, it's a fucking joke.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#370

Post by TimTheTinker »

blablabla123 wrote: post #145
EddieRingle wrote: post #43

One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong. I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism,…

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I'm sure you don't expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I'm convinced it suffices to just argue why summary…

Here's a blog post that provides some support for the OOP's viewpoint (esp. as it pertains to STEM careers).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

It seems there's good evidence that on average, biology affects career preferences to an extent. (Preference differences were even shown in 2-day old infants and (with a rather large standard deviation & n=41, iirc) primates.

The OOP's argument, to me, seemed to be primarily against institutionalized discrimination (e.g. affirmative action), which seems reasonable to me.

Not that status quo is OK. But there are probably better ways to help -- like programs aimed at introducing girls to computer programming, for example.

Post reply on HN