E Pur Si Muove • Hacker News Board

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#751

Post by ghostcluster » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 8:44 PM UTC

dguaraglia wrote: post #488

Houshalter wrote: post #363

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. Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. > Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. The problem is lately a lot of people make claims based on nothing…

> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies

They weren't. In fact you don't even need to look at studies, you can look at raw standardized test scores and see this is true.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#752

Post by backpropaganda » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

ihm wrote: post #697

sheepmullet wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they markedly different? Ive found it's much easier to shrug off discrimination based on my skin color than it is to shrug off discrimination based on my core beliefs. I'd love to see some research on this - do people who can be discriminated against based upon sexual orientation (which can be hidden) have it a lot easier than people who can be discriminated against based on skin color (which they obviously c…

> Ive found it's much easier to shrug off discrimination based on my skin color than it is to shrug off discrimination based on my core beliefs. Are you white?

I am not white, and indeed, discrimination based on skin color is much easier to shrug off for me, than discrimination based on thoughts or beliefs. I think it's because I equate my identity to my thoughts and beliefs, and not my skin color. This perhaps also comes from stoic philosophy, i.e. I don't bother to think about things I can't control such as my skin color.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#753

Post by mentat » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 8:52 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #716

ethbro wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, whatever points this article had were completely marred by terrible examples. The article isn't that complicated. He meant to say exactly what he did say. Which makes sense, given the entire point of tolerating free speech is that people are free to say terrible things, not "moderately uncomfortable" things. Executive summary: (1) Open societies are more innovative. (2) Silicon Valley is becoming less toleran…

> (2) Silicon Valley is becoming less tolerant of divergent viewpoints. As measured by what? Are there people being jailed for expressing a divergent opinion, or being refused service in restaurants/hotels/shops/etc, or unable to find employment? For the latter point, employment, some people are likely to pick one of the few examples that routinely get reused in this discussion - such as Damore + Google, or Eich + Mo…

People are actively trying to make others "unemployable" so, yes, unable to find employment.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#754

Post by tsjackson » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 8:54 PM UTC

staunch wrote: post #344

tsjackson wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thrust of the argument seems to be that we should do our best to stop censorship. I'm arguing that we probably shouldn't. Our society is not really equipped to handle the free exchange of ideas at this point.

Because some large percentage of people are filled with cynicism and pessimism? Every objective measure of society is better today than at any time in the past, and yet we have people calling for curtailing a core American value due to a supposed social emergency. These demoralized people need a hard reality check because there's nothing fact-based about the way they think or behave. There are orders of magnitude mor…

Techno-optimist drivel is at least as unsavory as the overly sensitive, anti-technological kneejerk reactions that this article is lamenting. It's absurd to write off real problems with technology because tech does good things as well.

I am having trouble following your jump from shutting down trolls to sacrificing our souls. If you think the loudest person should get a platform, I encourage you to spend some more time in (non-HN) comment sections.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#755

Post by backpropaganda » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 8:58 PM UTC

ak_yo wrote: post #108

throwaway8766 wrote: post #64

I'm extremely aware of this as someone who is socially conservative in terms of abortion, gay marriage, trans issues, etc (seriously not trying to start a flame war). It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to me, but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on my behavior at work; y…

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) gay marriage is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me. It's not that you can…

> How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral?

Have you never worked with people with different religious beliefs?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#756

Post by backpropaganda » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 9:03 PM UTC

ak_yo wrote: post #553

prepend wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn’t it simplistic to equate all transphobic people with murderers who commit violence against trans people? Would you also be scared of working with men because they typically commit homicides more than women? I think being afraid of your life simply because someone is a bigot who hasn’t exhibited any violent behavior is on you, not the bigot. A small number of bigots are violent and dangerous, that doesn’t mea…

I'd encourage you to think of this from the perspective of the person who's fearing for their life. It's rational to assume that the likelihood of someone potentially harming you is much higher if they're vocally expressing hatred about your identity.

Conservatives who are against say gay marriage aren't necessarily saying they hate gays. There are lots of completely benign reasons why people might believe that gay marriage shouldn't be a thing.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#757

Post by backpropaganda » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

p_eter_p wrote: post #459

jdtang13 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as you don't try to do anything about it, you can discuss whatever you want?

Yeah. That's precisely the idea behind "freedom of speech", that even if you're restricted in doing a lot of things, the restrictions on talking about is as little as possible.

Talking about it influences opinions, and when critical mass is reached, even autocratic governments sometimes are forced to abide by the consensus of their people.

Noone's claiming that China is a better or more progressive country btw, just that in this very specific regard, US is worse than China.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#758

Post by jancsika » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #732

jancsika wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives. That may be what you personally felt in this single personal anecdote, but it is not at all supported by the results for the bay area in the election[1]. There were an e…

OP is talking about the fact that people did not want to talk about their voting choice, for fear of criticism and being ostracized. My mom - and almost all of her friends - are also in that group. What was so surprising about her group of friends was that NONE of them talked about who they were going to vote for, prior to the election - EVEN TO EACH OTHER. AFTER the election they were all shocked to find they all fe…

> Their silence was directly a consequence of the doxx culture that would have meant their entire lives would be thrown into ruin for sharing their point of view.

You are making that claim where the evidence is people speculating about a case where they decided not to test the veracity of your claim.

Is there any evidence that your Mom and her friends would have been fired for expressing their political views?

I'm asking because here in the South people who voted for Trump a) express their views when I talk to them, and b) then go on about their day. Frustration, contention, and disagreements, and confusion abide but that's largely a function of Trump's high-noise rhetorical strategy and people (esp. older/retired) getting all their news from a single source. (Btw-- what happened to the stereotype of the proud/responsible U.S. working man reading multiple newspapers at the breakfast table? Is that just a myth of a bygone era?)

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#759

Post by backpropaganda » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 9:40 PM UTC

dguaraglia wrote: post #488

Houshalter wrote: post #363

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. Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies. Just because you can quote a paper it doesn't mean the paper is right. > Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Probably, but objective observable truth should prevail. The problem is lately a lot of people make claims based on nothing…

> Most of those studies were debunked as using very shaky methodologies.

This is a factually incorrect. Please try to introspect whether you're saying this because you want Damore to be wrong, instead of attempting to ascertain whether he was actually wrong.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#760

Post by Aaron1011 » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

alien_at_work wrote: post #687

Aaron1011 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion What is an 'objective opinion'? > get to ruin someones business and/or career? Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed ? If it's the former, how do you distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons to refrain from purchasing from a business? If it's…

>What is an 'objective opinion'? Look, things like murder or pedophilia are unabigiously evil. So it's not out of line or particularly dangerous to say that a person who engages in one of those activities or supports/defends those who do is unethical and possibly even evil. Extending the life of humans? That's not objectively evil. It has not been clearly demonstrated to be a negative on anything . In fact there are…

> Look, things like murder or pedophilia are unabigiously evil

If by 'murder' you mean 'unjustified killing', then that's trivially true. If, on the other hand, you just mean 'killing', then it's far from obvious that killing is 'unambiguously evil' (self-defense comes to mind).

> I feel like society, at least a larger portion of it, understood this in the past. Your creating taboos. Things we don't dare talk about or explore because we fear having our lives destroyed by twitter lynch mobs and the like.

Harassment on social media is certainly an issue, but it's ridiculous to describe 'people criticizing me on the Internet for what I say' to 'censorship'.

> But what you actually want to do is knowing as "mobbing" in Europe and it's generally illegal (at least in some countries)

No, what I 'actually want to do' is allow people to chose which companies to purchase from, and to allow them to advocate for others doing the same. What exactly do you mean by 'mobbing'?

> If your paper was critical of the Fuhrer brown shirts would storm in, trash the place and assualt people

Are you really going to compare online speech to physical violence?

> Live and let live. There are people out there with different views than you. Some of those views might be down right offensive if you really thought about it.

How do you determine which of those are 'unambiguously evil'?