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

What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#101

Post by GuiA »

Both sides feel oppressed! For example, some people think you can’t question diversity efforts; others think you can’t speak out about racism. Some think you can’t praise capitalism; others think you can’t suggest socialism. It’s theoretically possible that the Overton window could be in the middle and exclude both extremes, but to my mind it’s more likely that people just like to think or claim that their views are an oppressed minority.

That’s the real insight here. You wanted a fully networked society, well that’s what comes with a fully networked society.

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#102

Post by muninn_ »

matt4077 wrote: post #100
insickness wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A non-nerd reads it as: I want to kick out all X from tech. / I consider X inferior." I was out on an internet date with Scandinavian woman a few years ago. She was some type of sociological researcher, which interested me. I told her that part of the discrepancy in representation between genders in tech could be biologically oriented and she immediately said, "I don't want to hear arguments from biology!" She said…

There are two reasons for that: First of all, almost everything and its opposite can be argued from biology, and evolution. Among the reasons for that is a sort of circular logic, because many ideas of early human life we still hold are based on today’s stereotypes. Secondly, arguing from biology denies the single most important difference of humans and other animals: that we are unique in having the capability to ov…

Which would be fine except we use biology as the basis for all sorts of things all the time. “Men are typically more aggressive”, “Women tend to value family time or Y” “the male-dominated workplace isn’t friendly to women because of X”. I can’t tell you the number of times that biology is used in discussion of generalized differences between the sexes yet if somebody even hints that there may be a difference between men and women and how it may relate to technology it all of a sudden becomes some sort of sexist holy war. Nobody is throwing their hands in the air when it’s suggested that men tend to choose more dangerous lines of work than women (and die on the job at a vastly higher rate) because it’s in their nature, so why are we foaming at the mouth when biology may suggest men tend to be interested in things versus people? If the science suggests something than it is what it is. If it doesn’t then that’s fine too.

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#103

Post by 4bpp »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #55
evangelista wrote: post #11

“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 agree with some of the points you make, and I think they're pretty reasonable positions to take. 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 vi…

Not the parent poster, but I'll barge in and say I don't have any. Who knows, though - maybe there are actually some really good ones, and I'll never know them because everyone who came up with one kept quiet lest they be blacklisted and hounded out of polite society. Human reasoning is a cooperative effort (when can you say have you last won a debate on a topic widely regarded as important using only arguments you came up with yourself in a vacuum?); if you expel a position from the commons, you tilt the playing field against it in a way that is orthogonal to its truthfulness, and thereby destroy what would otherwise be a useful correlation between how a position fares in the debate circuit and how likely it is to be true.

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#105

Post by pjc50 »

spiznnx wrote: post #24
vxNsr wrote: post #3

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).

What does that actually mean? It has to mean that your views are consequence-less, that there is no way they could have an effect on the real world.

Do you really think it should be possible to walk around wearing a "kill all Jews" badge, and not recieve so much as an angry glare from a Jewish person?

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#106

Post by pjc50 »

spiznnx wrote: post #60
ggg9990 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Thanks for the Radiolab episode recommendation, I'll take a listen. >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…

> 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 :)

You said upthread that transgender thought should be socially unacceptable, so why do you hold this view?

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#108

Post by kirillkh »

erispoe wrote: post #91
stared wrote: post #57

My impression is that it is not only about topics, but also perceived intentions (and if you step, however unintentionally, on a trigger (of a landmine)). 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…

Sure, there's average differences between groups. Between almost any two arbitrary groups you'll find significant differences. The problem is that there's a very slippery slope between stating a difference, ascribing causality (the difference is due to biology, for instance), and justifying it as a moral imperative (we should treat men and women differently). It's dangerous because if differences between groups are e…

How about the moral imperative "we should treat men and women the same", as opposed to "women are heavily oppressed, we must discriminate in their favor"? Would that imperative be justified by stating a difference?

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#109

Post by xorcist »

insickness wrote: post #83
stared wrote: post #57

My impression is that it is not only about topics, but also perceived intentions (and if you step, however unintentionally, on a trigger (of a landmine)). 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…

"A non-nerd reads it as: I want to kick out all X from tech. / I consider X inferior." I was out on an internet date with Scandinavian woman a few years ago. She was some type of sociological researcher, which interested me. I told her that part of the discrepancy in representation between genders in tech could be biologically oriented and she immediately said, "I don't want to hear arguments from biology!" She said…

> It's as if once we allow these facts into the argument,

Right, facts.

Most of the biological arguments are very touchy-feely. But .. we can see differences in MRI between gays and straights (or men and women, or some other divide du jour)! That's to be expected. Unless your equipment is broken. But the facts that patterns in the brain has established doesn't tell us anything how, or why, they developed.

Scan a professional piano player and compare with a regular person and you'll pick up patterns there as well. Is that some sort of argument that piano talent is innate? If hypothetically some statistical factor could be identified that is more prevalent among black people and piano player, does that mean black people are more suited to be piano players?

No, it does not. Yet when considering sex differences, and to some extent race differences, those are the kind of argument that goes for factual. I doubt it's the factual part that bothers people, but rather the logical hoops necessary for these argument to gain practical relevance for decisionmaking.

I can somehow relate to the tiredness your friend expressed. In some other areas where I have taken active part for the past decade or two, I still encounter the same arguments over and over again (for example why open source is by necessity non-innovative), and every person genuiney believe they came up with a new and important thought that other people needs to consider. Just a quick skim of the discourse in the relevant area would really go a long way of presenting them in a more informed way.

So it might not be the arguments themselves that are tiring but the repetitivesness with the way they are presented.

Re: What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

#110

Post by T-R »

spiznnx wrote: post #66
pjc50 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should not be acceptable to society 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?

None. I don't mean current transgender people should be outcast, but we should begin to understand its external effects. They too are victims of stereotype. They chose (perhaps felt forced to chose) to change their body to fit the stereotype. But the problem with being unable to discuss this is that people who are beginning to question their cis identity may not see the other option: being yourself in your own body,…

> They chose (perhaps felt forced to chose) to change their body to fit the stereotype.

This is kind of presuming the conclusion, and ignoring the stated experiences of the people being discussed. The concept of gender identity (whether or not it does a good job of it) is explicitly intended to highlight that the causation isn't "I fit this stereotype, therefore I am this", but just "I feel I am this", with the implication that it may (or may not) be reaffirming to fit in socially with other people who are that way. Many don't identify with the stereotypes. Sure, some cling to stereotypes - maybe because they previously felt constrained from expressing themselves, or just as a practical measure against getting misidentified - but that doesn't imply that that's the cause or the goal. If you don't believe the claim that it isn't the cause, that's fair, but then it's just a person's beliefs against anothers' self-assessment.

The term "transitioning" is also used in a general sense, including "being yourself", as opposed to necessarily taking hormones. Taking hormones, changing paperwork, doctor appointments, losing fertility, etc., is kind of a long, drawn out, stressful ordeal that inherently starts with "being yourself in your own body" until changes kick in; it's pretty unlikely that someone transitioning hasn't considered just not doing the hard part, especially since it's so slow that there's ample time to turn back.

I'd wager most trans people are as opposed to gender essentialism and gender stereotypes as other feminists are. Nothing about accepting that they might actually just not be comfortable in their bodies, or at least just letting them be, implies philosophically accepting gender essentialism. Moreover, making the world more accpeting of people just being themselves is pretty closely aligned with just letting trans people be - if they actually don't need to transition, they'd be less likely to in a world where those who don't fit stereotypes, like trans people, are more accepted. And it's not a verboten topic - the Reddit trans communities have these discussions pretty often, when the questions are asked genuinely. It's just that, as with other minority-focused topics, it's often brought up with the clear intention of harassment rather than having an actual discussion, so there's a low tolerance for things that signal disingenuousness.

Post reply on HN