51–60 of 181 posts
So basically people with opinions on both extremes feel marginalized and unheard. I guess that's maybe a message to consider a more nuanced position.
I want Silicon Valley to be a place where you can publicly hold extreme views and not be a huge social liability to anyone you associate with (employer, friends).
“A lot of the ideas here will not actually get you ostracized from Silicon Valley society.” Oh dude you have just not been paying attention. Can you show me a single example of someone in tech who publicly expresses, at any point, any of the beliefs which are “not allowed?” I’m looking for one. Find me one person on Twitter in tech aside from John McAfee or Peter Theil who would dare. Sam Altman was good enough to st…
I don't think I could convince you of anything. But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? There are definitely some political views that should be socially discouraged and attacked and there should be social repercussions for the people who express them. You disagree on…
If not, then I have a feeling that you mistakenly equate many opposing ideas to "pure evil ideologies".
“A lot of the ideas here will not actually get you ostracized from Silicon Valley society.” Oh dude you have just not been paying attention. Can you show me a single example of someone in tech who publicly expresses, at any point, any of the beliefs which are “not allowed?” I’m looking for one. Find me one person on Twitter in tech aside from John McAfee or Peter Theil who would dare. Sam Altman was good enough to st…
I don't think I could convince you of anything. But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? There are definitely some political views that should be socially discouraged and attacked and there should be social repercussions for the people who express them. You disagree on…
Well, on some issues you can always appeal to authorities - for example if people have strong opinions on economic issues you can compare that consensus to IGM Forum polls. People are oftentimes predictably biased.
Alternatively, you can try to get people who disagree with eachother to perform an ideological Turing test. It should be informative if someone basically cannot meaningfully articulate the actual arguments that are being presented that they disagree with.
“A lot of the ideas here will not actually get you ostracized from Silicon Valley society.” Oh dude you have just not been paying attention. Can you show me a single example of someone in tech who publicly expresses, at any point, any of the beliefs which are “not allowed?” I’m looking for one. Find me one person on Twitter in tech aside from John McAfee or Peter Theil who would dare. Sam Altman was good enough to st…
I don't think I could convince you of anything. But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? There are definitely some political views that should be socially discouraged and attacked and there should be social repercussions for the people who express them. You disagree on…
Yes, we can tell most of the time, and yes even if it gets difficult sometimes and we fail to distinguish unfair and genuine persecution, we will try our best to discuss it, study it, and get better at it. That's how we should approach the problem. That, is the intellectual way.
Your method of automatically shutting down discussion of controversial ideas just because a small percentage of them are truly evil, is in fact more anti-intellectual than anything Scott Adams has ever said/written.
“A lot of the ideas here will not actually get you ostracized from Silicon Valley society.” Oh dude you have just not been paying attention. Can you show me a single example of someone in tech who publicly expresses, at any point, any of the beliefs which are “not allowed?” I’m looking for one. Find me one person on Twitter in tech aside from John McAfee or Peter Theil who would dare. Sam Altman was good enough to st…
But I'm curious as to the arguments against all gender bathrooms? I've visited tons of restaurants over the years that just had a single restroom, and it's never been a problem. When you have people over they might use your bathroom, and that's also not considered a problem. Heck, at all the doctor's offices I recall visiting they always had a single bathroom. I always find it slightly frustrating when I try using the restroom and it's occupied and I'm forced to wait, even though there's a unoccupied bathroom mere feet away. What are people's concerns with shared bathrooms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really something that can be well summarized in a hn comment, but basically, it re-enforces the idea that men and women are actually so different that you have to be a certain gender just to do something you want to do (gender essentialism). My main point is, if it were acceptable, my s.o. would have a blog post about it that I could just link you to.
>basically, it re-enforces the idea that men and women are actually so different that you have to be a certain gender just to do something you want to do (gender essentialism) Do you think there's a difference between thinking you have to be a woman because you want (for example) to be a nurse, and thinking you have to be a woman because you want to be a woman?
I wrote Dating for Nerds: Gender differences (http://p.migdal.pl/2017/09/30/dating-for-nerds-gender-differ...) and got no backlash (much to my surprise, though).
From my experience nerds (and aspies in particular) talk mostly to exchange information (learn, share). Same questions are being understood by neurotypicals as expressing intentions, in a covert way.
Nerd: I read that X, on the average, are less interested in tech.
A non-nerd reads it as: I want to kick out all X from tech. / I consider X inferior.
A non-nerd disagrees with the perceived intention and fights back, while a nerd perceives it as immunity to facts and unwillingness for a discussion.
That said:
- not all nerds are well-intentioned and open-minded
- workplace is not a place for all possible talks (or other social activities); if it makes people feel bad, excluded or less productive - it may be an argument to keep such discussions outside of the workplace; in particular, workplace is not an evolutionary biology discussion club
And BTW, from "Interpersonal Traits of Aspies Placed in Context": https://gist.github.com/stared/00ce50e95f9bcecc8965feb04650c... see "Not Recognizing 'Yellow Light' Conditions" and even more: "Doesn't Apologize Readily".
My S.O. thinks that transgender thought poses a threat to feminist aims and should not be acceptable to society, and has some really good arguments. I'm starting to be convinced, but I really can't discuss it with anyone else. edit: goodnight as its getting late.
Is that argument really relevant? Aren't they human beings who don't chose to be transgender? So, their existence is their right. It's not a political position, or a favourite flavour of icecream, it's a human state of being.
It's not just changing your body, but a redefinition of your identity to something that others were born with.
It's also a solution to something you felt needed to be solved. In the current framework of thinking, if someone feels they feel "feminine" without taking the time to really think about what that is, they might be told to consider that they are transgender. Being transgender is highly costly, associated with depression and suicide, and may make a person who feels not normal in a position where they are now even more of a minority.
My S.O. thinks that transgender thought poses a threat to feminist aims and should not be acceptable to society, and has some really good arguments. I'm starting to be convinced, but I really can't discuss it with anyone else. edit: goodnight as its getting late.
So .. what level of violence against transgender people does this justify? Or is the hope that they can be bullied into suicide so you can pretend it's their fault?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really something that can be well summarized in a hn comment, but basically, it re-enforces the idea that men and women are actually so different that you have to be a certain gender just to do something you want to do (gender essentialism). My main point is, if it were acceptable, my s.o. would have a blog post about it that I could just link you to.
Yes, you should listen to the Gondolier episode of Radiolab. But if transgender people feel that that is true, and maybe it is true, and maybe it does weaken feminist goals... Why should the impact on feminist goals be relevant to the conversation? I.e., is society's benchmark the advancement of feminism?
>Why should the impact on feminist goals be relevant to the conversation?
Because feminists are members of the society, and they hold those views for a reason. I think you already know why feminists think that feminism is good for society.
Of course, it is a valid opinion to hold that women and men are fundamentally different. The problems arise when this limits people's freedom. As a technologist I look forward to this problem disappearing. When switching genders is like switching an outfit, then all these concerns will become irrelevant :)