451–460 of 853 posts
Funny, I experience exactly the opposite moving to SF from Zurich (Switzerland). I could write the same blog post but replace SF with Zurich and it would work for my experience. I would like to see data on this. This seems like a very anectodal post (and I think the controversial comments underline it).
Sam Altman is an idiot. The tolerance for "gay people are evil" has, more than once, led to "gay people must die". In fact, it is an inescapable consequence - if you declare people evil, you do declare you want to rid the world of them. And coming from that point: You are still free to say this, of course. And everybody in the Bay Area is free to say it, too. But there are consequences to your speech . And the conseq…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This distinction seems very fragile. I notice you've switched the act from "working on" in the original quote to "presenting". I don't think your distinction works anymore if you remove that change you made. Why would it be wrong to regard someone dedicating most of their time to actively accomplishing ("working on") an unethical thing as an unethical person? What else could "unethical person" possibly mean?
The issue is that what we're discussing is not objectively unethical. If we were discussing disecting live babies, then no one would disagree that anyone for that is unethical and even evil. But extending human life? We don't know exactly what would happen if we did that. Some people think it would be the end of the world, others (like me) think it would actually bring about positive change. Given that it's controver…
If people aren't allowed to state that 'behavior X makes person Y unethical', then how are we supposed to determine what is 'objectively unethical'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an "anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.) >they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how…
> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Ehhh. Among my friends/coworkers one of the biggest objections was how dicey a lot of the referenced research was, and how much he was bending or extending conclusions to fit his narrative. At the very best his essay was awful science, but to me it felt more like a half-hearted attempt to cherrypick studies that sort of reinforced h…
Thats what's scary.
Things you can't say in San Francisco: - Gays are about 3% of the US population. Higher in a few big cities, lower in rural areas. Transgenders, maybe 0.4%. - About half the US population supported Trump. His supporters have legitimate complaints. - Average US Asian IQ: 105. Average US white IQ: 100. Average US black IQ: 85. - "Medical marijuana" is a joke.
I don't get it. Assuming this demographic fact is correct, what's your point? That they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as the other 96.6%?
> - About half the US population supported Trump. His supporters have legitimate complaints.
About 63 million Americans voted for Trump. This is not half the US population. Whether half the US population supports Trump or not is pure speculation.
> - Average US Asian IQ: 105. Average US white IQ: 100. Average US black IQ: 85.
Even granted that this is true. Do you have any evidence that this is nature not nurture?
> "Medical marijuana" is a joke.
Possible. But is it any worse than the current opioid epidemic? And why is tobacco legal anyway? Seems like I should be able to choose my poison.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4YRnjrM1Q
And I remember being very upset, that I seemed to be the only one moved by the topic, while the rest of the class, including the teacher, found it booring and just learned about it, because they had to ... blasphemists!
Sam Altman is an idiot. The tolerance for "gay people are evil" has, more than once, led to "gay people must die". In fact, it is an inescapable consequence - if you declare people evil, you do declare you want to rid the world of them. And coming from that point: You are still free to say this, of course. And everybody in the Bay Area is free to say it, too. But there are consequences to your speech . And the conseq…
What do you think about the choice of the ACLU to defend the neo-nazis' right to protest in South Carolina? I abhor the content of their speech, but I think I agree it's important that it's defended.
On the other hand, what about the restrictions on neo-nazi speech in Germany after WWII? I think I agree that this restriction of speech was a good idea, as it prevented the possibility of that thinking continuing to take root and spread.
The difference between the two scenarios in my intuition is that one feels far removed from being "real" -- I don't sense that neo-nazis are close to taking over American government (Trump jokes aside) so I see it as important to protect it as minority speech; but in post WWII Germany, it was much closer to "real" that the hate speech would transform into hateful action, including restricting speech on the other side. So the probability of the outcome of speech matters (or the popularity of the speech) in my mind, and the more minority the speech, even if abhorrent, the more important it is to protect; but, as the speech approaches majority or becomes "action" then my intuition starts to flip. But it's always maximizing protection for minority speech, and draws a bright line between speech and risk of action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really ? Do you openly discuss LGBT rights in Beijing ? What about rights of Uighur folks in China ? Do you discuss that in Beijing ? What about Tibetian rights ? Is that discussed ?
Yes. You can talk to people in Beijing, especially college students, about these issues and more. One of my friends is an ethnic minority in China and talked about these issues with Han Chinese folk with no negative consequences. Many young people in China are also ready to talk about LGBT issues. There is no problem. As long as you don't try to subvert the government or anything, you can talk about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that "logical response" is that it is wrong. Here is a simple demonstration. Consider the conservative argument that when you raise the minimum wage, elementary economics of supply and demand results in fewer jobs for poor people. I guarantee you that if you present this argument to 10 liberal friends, more than half will have a strong emotional response against it. While responding, some are likely…
If I tell my Libertarian friends that income and wealth inequality is bad for the economy because it reduces consumer spending and bad for society because it radicalized those at the bottom. And then explain that it should be solved with wealth redistribution in the form of progressive taxation and estate taxes they get similarly upset. This is hardly a problem unique to liberals.