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

161–170 of 181 posts

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

#161

Post by extra88 »

owebmaster wrote: post #155
extra88 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it exists "It" being a biological basis for romantic behavior? We've survived this long without know how, or if, biology determines our current romantic behavior, I think we'll be okay. We're not going to go extinct because everyone is fucking robots.

> We've survived this long without know how, or if, biology determines our current romantic behavior Do we? Because I see no evidence of the opposite. Also, culture (and sociology for the matter) is biologically determined.

Humans have existed a lot longer than science or the contemplation of nature vs. nurture.

> no evidence of the opposite

There's plenty of evidence that romantic behavior is culturally determined. Just look at how much it has changed over the centuries even though, biologically, humans have hardly changed at all. There's also the wide variance between cultures geographically in which we're all biologically the same.

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

#162

Post by barry-cotter »

cousin_it wrote: post #98

I wonder what percentage of HN users would subscribe to this sentence for some values of X and Y: "I am worse at task X than person Y for genetic reasons."

I am worse at playing basketball than the average high school basketball player because I’m of average height, have poor hand eye coordination and a terrible vertical jump, all of which are largely genetic.

I am worse at math than the average physics undergrad for genetic reasons, low conscientiousness and interest.

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

#163

Post by tstactplsignore »

Cookingboy wrote: post #52
tstactplsignore wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you really think Scott Adams is "purely evil", as in Hitler level, I have some strong suspicion that you are a troll that is trying to make liberals look ridiculous. If not, then I have a feeling that you mistakenly equate many opposing ideas to "pure evil ideologies".

I could list off how he treats his purposeful ignorance and anti-intellectualism as a virtue, how he pushed a strange cult-like "persuation" pseudoscience that also celebrates a kind of selfish creepiness as a virtue, his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial-

But I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints in the comments here, and I think you missed my entire point. My point was it is very difficult to tell right from wrong when those wrongs are widely accepted by society. A majority of Germans in the 1930s either believed in Nazism or believed it was just an "opposing idea". An even larger majority of Americans in the 60s disapproved of MLK, and either believed in racist laws or believed that they were just "opposing ideas".

My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong.

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

#164

Post by tstactplsignore »

Cookingboy wrote: post #54
tstactplsignore wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? 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…

I certainly never said that was "my method".

I disagree that we can tell most of the time. I think we can't tell most of the time. Most Americans couldn't tell in the 60s- about 33% of the country had a favorable view of MLK. Most Germans couldn't tell in the 30s. And so on and so on. If we were any good at tellint, then evil wouldn't be so scary!

My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those, saying the exact same sorts of things the people who were wrong in those circumstances said. It's possible we're not in that kind of situation, but I hope that you realize that (a) some of the things that you're upset about (educated people pushing some ideas out of their institutions; radicals and communists protesting in the streets; highly charged and accusatory language) were the exact same sorts of things the people who ended up being wrong in those circumstances were upset about, and (b) historically, people sympathetic towards these bad ideas or unsympathetic to their opponents could not tell the difference in their own times.

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

#165

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

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…

Reading through "Interpersonal Traits of Aspies Placed in Context" has gotten me thinking pretty deeply about myself. I found many items in that writeup exceedingly relatable. I've previously been told that I definitely have some aspie aspects / tendencies, but hadn't ever given it much thought, especially on their potential impact.

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

#166

Post by korax »

tarsinge wrote: post #150
korax wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This leaves me wondering: What do you consider to be the right context for public debates about these thorny issues? What besides communicating with each other about those issues will move us forward? I don't think they will go away by themselves and I agree that some cannot be resolved, but then we should politely agree to disagree, after having explained our reasoning for each other's viewpoints, no? Disclaimer: I…

It depends of the issues we are talking of. What I'm saying is that introducing biology at this point in the debate, by looking if the inequality is "natural" because phenotype A or chromosome B gives you some edge or not in science or other discipline, is kind of irrelevant given the weight of culture in our societies. I find it even dangerous because I don't think a lot of people are ready to understand the subtlet…

I disagree, we should always, when available, use our best source of knowledge to argue about issues. Always. I see no reason to say, "hmm let's go and use lesser quality evidence."

I would even say that, if you don't know the science about an issue, it might be the wisest to refrain from having a strong position on a matter, at all.

Sure, many people do not understand statistics, I would dare postulate many many scientists don't properly understand stats ;)

But, if we do away with the science domain, people will resort to another domain, which is normally trumped in debates by scientific arguments. And that is, anecdotal evidence. And people will use it just as much and as falsely to defend their believes.

(no worries, not a native speaker either :) )

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

#167

Post by Cookingboy »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #164
Cookingboy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? 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…

I certainly never said that was "my method". I disagree that we can tell most of the time. I think we can't tell most of the time. Most Americans couldn't tell in the 60s- about 33% of the country had a favorable view of MLK. Most Germans couldn't tell in the 30s. And so on and so on. If we were any good at tellint, then evil wouldn't be so scary! My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those,…

So? That's my exact point. In all of your examples the righteous eventually prevailed due to their own merits, and history proved that they were on the right side.

You don't get claim victory by shutting down the debate at the beginning. You don't get to moral high ground by "proclaiming" it, you get there by engaging the opposition in debates and by fighting to change people's mind with positive examples.

MLK knew he was right, and he worked hard to convince the remaining 66% of the country by engaging with them, by changing one mind at a time.

>My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those, saying the exact same sorts of things the people who were wrong in those circumstances said.

That's some crazy logic fallacy. Just because you are pushing new agenda doesn't mean you are automatically correct and your opposition are literally the same as Nazis. You also automatically assume that your ideas are the "good ones" and anything that differs even slightly to your opinion is "bad ideas". How can you tell that you are not the one being sympathetic toward "bad ideas", it is after all, like you said, hard to tell right?

You know who used the same kind of logic? Literally Nazis and Communists. They automatically proclaimed their ideology as the "righteous ones" and brutally shut down any debates.

I'm of the opinion that if you have to forcefully shut down opposite views from even debating you, then your idea is not worth debating in the first place, and you are just some immature child putting himself on a moral pedestal.

I don't know how old you are, but I wish one day you get to learn that the world is not black and white, but different shades of gray. And yes, even your own opinions will change throughout time, for different reasons.

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

#168

Post by Cookingboy »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #163
Cookingboy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really think Scott Adams is "purely evil", as in Hitler level, I have some strong suspicion that you are a troll that is trying to make liberals look ridiculous. If not, then I have a feeling that you mistakenly equate many opposing ideas to "pure evil ideologies".

I could list off how he treats his purposeful ignorance and anti-intellectualism as a virtue, how he pushed a strange cult-like "persuation" pseudoscience that also celebrates a kind of selfish creepiness as a virtue, his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial- But I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints in t…

Your entire argument is based off cherry picking historic examples where the majority is wrong.

>My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong.

So what are you suggesting here? Should we automatically crown the minority's opinion as the "right one" because they challenge the status quo being accepted by society? Yes, you have examples of Jim Crow and MLK, does that mean every time someone writes off an idea his argument is automatically as valid as MLK's and his opponents are automatically the KKK?

> so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether we can determine right from wrong. I can't do that easily, and neither can you. So let all sides debate and engage with each other and make history judge the outcome. You do not get to jump through this step.

Remember, Fascism and Communism rose to power by being the "progressive minority" at first and claimed morale high ground against their oppositions and shut down all forms of public debate soon after.

If you think the majority is bad at judging good from bad, what makes you think the minority is better in this case?

Dr. King's speech started with "I have a dream", not "I'm right and you are wrong and is not even worth my time to debate". Unfortunately, Social Justice Warriors today are no MLK.

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

#169

Post by gjjrfcbugxbhf »

vxNsr wrote: post #141
gjjrfcbugxbhf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is you are free to hold and expose extreme views - and I strongly support your right to do so and not to be subject to persecution from the state for doing so. However I also have the right to not associate with you if I think that you are a dick.

Ugh, so done with this xkcd. Ignoring people who we don't agree with is how we got to a place where supporting your political party was more important than having an ideology you could morally justify. I personally lean fairly far to the right but I spend a lot of time listening to NPR, reading slate, and other pretty lefty publications. When I talk to people who only consume one side of the media, whether it's right…

The OP is talking about extreme views like racism (or in their case hating trans people).

You are talking about listening to Democrat opinions.

Very very different thing.

I am quite happy to be friends with people with different political opinions or who vote for another party.

I am also happy to know who is spouting racist, sexist or crazy drivel. This allows me personally to avoid them.

Others may choose to engage with the extremists I choose not to waste my time. This is a matter for individual free will.

NB once again listening to Democrat/republican media when you are voting for the other party is just normal and has nothing to do with choosing not to associate with e.g Klansman.

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

#170

Post by Cookingboy »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #163
Cookingboy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really think Scott Adams is "purely evil", as in Hitler level, I have some strong suspicion that you are a troll that is trying to make liberals look ridiculous. If not, then I have a feeling that you mistakenly equate many opposing ideas to "pure evil ideologies".

I could list off how he treats his purposeful ignorance and anti-intellectualism as a virtue, how he pushed a strange cult-like "persuation" pseudoscience that also celebrates a kind of selfish creepiness as a virtue, his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial- But I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints in t…

> his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial-

So endorsing Trump is literally "pure evil" on the same level as Hitler?

Yeah, at this point I'm afraid that I can't take anything you say seriously.

Post reply on HN