What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#221

Post by Udik » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

yourbandsucks wrote: post #57

traderjane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which group is countering the strength of straight white males? When one looks at the faces of the powerful in America, what do they see? Gay black women?

Different arenas. You're talking about representation among the powerful in mainstream America, but OP was talking about accepted speech in tech/academia. You can both be right.

No, he has a point. "Accepted speech in tech/ academia" is supposed (in pg's theory) to be enforced by a group that has recently become more powerful than the previous power holders. But if you look at tech, or academia, or politics, or economy, they're still overwhelmingly dominated by white males. Which falsifies pg's theory.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#222

Post by jonny383 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

cc81 wrote: post #218

jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

How do you view intersex people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Fair point. There are two genders, and you were either born (male or female) or (with a medical condition).

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#223

Post by cc81 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

psilocipher wrote: post #205

rmilejczz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, has anyone ever been fired, imprisoned, or killed for saying that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/teacher-fired-refusi...

I don't know what really happened but assuming he just refused then I assume that will in the future more been like a teacher who refused to stop calling his black students negroes than an example of PC hysteria.

But who knows

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#224

Post by username90 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #221

yourbandsucks wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different arenas. You're talking about representation among the powerful in mainstream America, but OP was talking about accepted speech in tech/academia. You can both be right.

No, he has a point. "Accepted speech in tech/ academia" is supposed (in pg's theory) to be enforced by a group that has recently become more powerful than the previous power holders. But if you look at tech, or academia, or politics, or economy, they're still overwhelmingly dominated by white males. Which falsifies pg's theory.

American politics is strange, tech people tend to be more right wing in Europe where the right is usually scientific instead of religious like in America. So in America you have the choice of either being on the side of religion or the side of progress, and the side of progress just happens to be the same side as all these movements against white, straight men.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#225

Post by yourbandsucks » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #221

yourbandsucks wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different arenas. You're talking about representation among the powerful in mainstream America, but OP was talking about accepted speech in tech/academia. You can both be right.

No, he has a point. "Accepted speech in tech/ academia" is supposed (in pg's theory) to be enforced by a group that has recently become more powerful than the previous power holders. But if you look at tech, or academia, or politics, or economy, they're still overwhelmingly dominated by white males. Which falsifies pg's theory.

My comment was that accepted speech and representation are different things, so saying "but representation" isn't really speaking to it, imo.

And you're not even right about the demographics unless one ignores east and south Asians. Plurality != Dominance.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#226

Post by tyrust » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

If you adopt more accurate terminology by substituting "gender" for "sex" you shouldn't have an issue.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#227

Post by lone_haxx0r » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #168

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress. Popper's opinion only makes sense when the…

How can fighting intolerance "suppress things the mob does not agree with", if that is in itself intolerance? The whole point is to allow different ideas to exist.

Look at the history of censorship and look at the current state of affairs.

9 out of 10 times, censorship is just a tool used to suppress things that the one in charge (a person, institution, or 'mob') doesn't like, while that same censor holds ideas equally or more intolerant than the suppressed ones.

I don't want to go into specific examples, because otherwise this thread will devolve into a discussion about those specific issues. But look around and try to analyze things impartially.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#228

Post by umvi » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

tyrust wrote: post #226

jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

If you adopt more accurate terminology by substituting "gender" for "sex" you shouldn't have an issue.

I mean, there are some extremely rare, extremely weird biological corner cases, but for the overwhelmingly majority there are only 2 chromosome configurations: XX and XY

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#229

Post by smitop » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

hailk wrote: post #213

rmilejczz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, has anyone ever been fired, imprisoned, or killed for saying that?

I think there is a law in Canada against mis-gendering people. Lot of popular tech companies have explicit CoC guideline against mis-gendering. StackOverflow recently fired a moderator for proposing to use gender neutral pro-nouns instead of individual preferred pronouns, even when there is no official CoC defined as such.

The Canadian Human Rights Act states:

> Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression by his or her employer or agent of the employer or by another employee.

(there is also a similar paragraph for landlords)

> “harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#230

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

kaens wrote: post #64

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…

The problem with Popper’s proposal that intolerant ideologies must not be tolerated is that it fails Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance test. If you really think that intolerant ideologies must not be tolerated, then you should feel comfortable about your political enemies being the ones who determine what constitutes an intolerant ideology. If you feel that things would not go well, then perhaps the idea that we should be able to persecute ideologies which are “intolerant” is bad and we shouldn’t give that power to anyone.