Mark in the Middle • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark in the Middle

#161

Post by lalaland1125 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

actuator wrote: post #22

ThomPete wrote: post #4

I will never understand the extreme intellectual fragility of cancel culture. A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. Mob like behaviour to hound someone for their beliefs just reeks of illiberalism.

Do you think it would be "illiberal" to hound someone for believing that white people are inherently superior to black people?

To keep things in context, JK Rowling has stated that she believes that biologically male people are inherently a danger to biologically female people.

This is fundamentally the paradox of tolerance: is it intolerant to be hostile to intolerant beliefs?

JK Rowling's essay explaining her stances on trans people:

> ... I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

> When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#162

Post by mattacular » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #6

jsiepkes wrote: post #3

> "The community we serve tends to be, on average, ideologically a little bit more conservative than our employee base." If I had to pick one sentence of the article which sums up the entire issue it would be this one.

Although a follow up would be the comforting level of maturity in Facebook's leadership, acknowledging that it isn't their role to bring politics into the workplace. It is distressingly refreshing to see a company in the news for taking a stance like "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]". It r…

Whenever someone says "don't bring politics into X" it's a cop-out. Doubly so for anything related to Facebook. Politics is how we solve all problems between competing interests as a society. You can't operate a business in this country (or any) which is divorced from politics. It's absurd for Zuck to suggest that his business should be immune to political forces.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#163

Post by tqi » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #145

m0ck wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go even further in this argument - it's the small, altough very loud minority of FB (or other IT company) employees, living in their Twitter feeds and causing outrage totally disproportional to their group size. The "missing snacks" example in the article illustrates it beautifully. I would argue that it actually concerns more employees than content policy issues.

The irony is just delicious. It's just like the problem that very small minority of folks on FB have been given a megaphone to spread lies and hate. All FB has to do is tone down the engagement algorithms. Put up a bunch of invisible walls.

10 years ago the concern was filter bubbles. Now we want invisible walls?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#164

Post by dboreham » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #156

notacoward wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Even the people who train the models and code the algorithms don't have a lot of control over how they respond to ever-changing inputs - and that's kind of the real problem IMO. There was a recent thing on Twitter, where someone discovered that it would consistently generate thumbnails focused on white faces when both white and black faces were present. At a gross level this is clearly because of inadequa…

If we don't understand how something works and it seems to be causing negative effects perhaps we shouldn't be using said algorithms in the largest social network.

It causes positive effects in the form of higher profits for the company.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#165

Post by xienze » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

sagichmal wrote: post #140

roenxi wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans, being politicians, lied about their motives in 2015 by reflex. Nobody was ever fooled by what they said - what they believe, as evidenced by their actions, is the best option is for them to choose who is on the court. That doesn't require any intellectual contortions to understand or support for Republican voters. It isn't like the Democrats would behave much differently. There is no way Trump would…

Yes, the Democrats would absolutely not be so nakedly malevolent. Is this not overwhelmingly apparent?

What in the world are you talking about? The whole reason Democrats are going on and on about this election year appointment is because they wanted to fill Scalia's seat in 2016 and Republicans held all the chips and said "nah, we're gonna wait until after the election." Don't take my word for it, look at what Hillary Clinton said:

> The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.[0]

Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, but to claim the Democrats wouldn't do this if they had the position Republicans currently do is laughable. They threw a fit about this exact same scenario just four years ago, just with the arguments flipped! And they would quickly brush aside any criticism of hypocrisy by saying "hey we didn't say you had to leave a SC seat empty during an election year, you guys did!" and they'd still have some claim to being logically consistent in their beliefs. This is how politics work, yes even your beloved party isn't above it.

BTW, if you want to see some real fun, wait until the Democrats have all three branches. They're gonna pack the SC.

0: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#166

Post by lucasmullens » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #85

loxs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning. It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting. We might, of course, both be wrong :)

FWIW here's my take: - No one voting for Hillary in 2016 is voting for Trump in 2020 - People voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016 are either not voting or voting for Biden in 2020 - Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 out of protest for Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination are either not voting again or they're voting for Biden in 2020 - People who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into three camps: they're e…

I think you're mostly getting downvoted for speaking in certainties. That's a reasonable take if you said "most" in front of each bullet, but claims of "no one" only take a single person for the claim to be wrong.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#167

Post by luckylion » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #89

yomly wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the developing world are still deeply homophobic. Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.…

> Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser. > and in doing so force the other group to take a side. No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc. > have had their own life circumstances shape their…

> No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc.

Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? Do you believe that you are as smart as you are because of $somethingYouDid and not because of genetic and environmental lotteries?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#168

Post by mensetmanusman » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

carabiner wrote: post #154

mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

[flagged]

Quid est veritas?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#169

Post by pavanky » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

jsiepkes wrote: post #3

> "The community we serve tends to be, on average, ideologically a little bit more conservative than our employee base." If I had to pick one sentence of the article which sums up the entire issue it would be this one.

That is a cop out from Facebook and any social media company if there was any. The algorithmic feed that drives more engagement drives their user base to be more extreme.

It is also hypocritical of Facebook employees who were quiet when worse atrocities were happening in other parts of the world where their platform is "the only source of truth" (read Myanmar / Philippines).

Re: Mark in the Middle

#170

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #155

pjc50 wrote: post #68

> "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]" The set of people for whom this is true is shrinking by the day; remaining Republican requires an increasingly bizarre set of intellectual contortions. For example, you'd have to believe that appointing a Supreme Court justice right at the end of your te…

And every democrat thought the opposite and changed their tune too. No one really has any strong beliefs about when the president gets to choose a supreme court justice, these beliefs just meld to fit whatever situation will get them a supreme court justice who will represent all the beliefs they do feel strongly about.

[deleted]