Mark in the Middle • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark in the Middle

#551

Post by ThomPete » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:22 AM UTC

codezero wrote: post #536

lightgreen wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults Or it's opposite. Children recently get so overprotected (eg they no longer can go walk in the forest alone for example), so when they reach 20, they are still children mentally, they cannot stand for themselves, and they expect protection from employee, government, society even when they hear something offensive (which is a lot).

I'm 40 and have worked with plenty of people in their early 20s, one engineer who joined my company at 19. They seem completely well adjusted, smart, eager to grow and learn, and the only distinct difference I notice which maybe could moonlight as seeing them as annoying is that they ask for raises, are demanding, and know what they deserve and won't deal with bullshit. Those are great features, and I've learned so m…

the article is literally about people in tech, on top of that spotify, youtube, twitter google all having their issues with handling dissenting opinions.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#552

Post by ThomPete » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:24 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #550

ThomPete wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about two very different things. I am talking about our upbringing I am fairly sure most parents aren't prejudice against their children and I am pretty sure most kids aren't trans although it's certainly in vogue to call yourself to something of that effect in many youth circles. So it's not a good example it's missing the point as most people we are talking about here aren't trans.

I’ve had someone openly claim I must be lying when I say I’m vegetarian; I’m just young enough to avoid my left-handedness being problematic (Latin: sinister); I don’t believe in any god, and some people think that is impossible; I’m bi and people deny that exists; I know people who are ace and the position of some Catholics is “Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people…

since when have lefthandedness been a problem?

You are also confusing two different discussions.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#553

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:27 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #552

ben_w wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve had someone openly claim I must be lying when I say I’m vegetarian; I’m just young enough to avoid my left-handedness being problematic (Latin: sinister); I don’t believe in any god, and some people think that is impossible; I’m bi and people deny that exists; I know people who are ace and the position of some Catholics is “Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people…

since when have lefthandedness been a problem? You are also confusing two different discussions.

School children in the 1970s (so, people who are about 50+ today) might have come across teachers who wanted to "correct" the left-handedness.

https://www.rightleftrightwrong.com/history_recent.html

> It was only in the Post-War years, under the influence of John Dewy’s progressive education movement, that a certain amount of tolerance for individual differences and non-conformity developed. But, even then, indeed as late as the 1960s and 1970s, Catholic school teachers in particular routinely inflicted corporal punishment and psychological pressure on left-handed students, ranging from accusations of being in cahoots with the Devil to, bizarrely, being Communist.

> Soviet bloc countries continued to maintain strict policies against left-handedness that persisted well into the 1970s. Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia and the Iron Curtain countries all made right-handed writing compulsory in school. In Albania, left-handedness was actually declared illegal and was punishable as a crime.

> Even in the relatively open-minded and informed society of today, parents and teachers may encourage a left-handed child to switch out of the best of motives, such as a genuine desire to make their lives easier in a largely right-handed world. The children themselves may impose their own peer pressure to conform to majority norms, and a good percentage of natural left-handers tell of their own self-inflicted attempts to switch hands during childhood.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#554

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:33 AM UTC

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?

Judith Butler --

> Interviewer: You weren't a signatory to the open letter on “cancel culture” in Harper’s this summer, but did its arguments resonate with you?

> JB: I have mixed feelings about that letter. On the one hand, I am an educator and writer and believe in slow and thoughtful debate. I learn from being confronted and challenged, and I accept that I have made some significant errors in my public life. If someone then said I should not be read or listened to as a result of those errors, well, I would object internally, since I don't think any mistake a person made can, or should, summarise that person. We live in time; we err, sometimes seriously; and if we are lucky, we change precisely because of interactions that let us see things differently.

> JB: On the other hand, some of those signatories were taking aim at Black Lives Matter as if the loud and public opposition to racism were itself uncivilised behaviour. Some of them have opposed legal rights for Palestine. Others have [allegedly] committed sexual harassment. And yet others do not wish to be challenged on their racism. Democracy requires a good challenge, and it does not always arrive in soft tones. So I am not in favour of neutralising the strong political demands for justice on the part of subjugated people. When one has not been heard for decades, the cry for justice is bound to be loud.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#555

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:41 AM UTC

lalaland1125 wrote: post #161

actuator wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stanc…

Also, she's lying about "throwing open the doors". That was never the intention of proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. We've had years of hateful campaigning, with the most prominent support coming from JKR but also from the right wing UK press, spreading misinformation.

http://qna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/1236318/origin...

> The Equality Act allows service providers to offer separate or differing services to men and women, or services to one sex only. For example, a domestic violence refuge may offer its services only to women. The Act also allows service providers to exclude a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from a single-sex or separate-sex service, provided that doing so is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim –in other words, where the service provider can demonstrate that there is a very strong reason for doing so. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the needs of both the individual trans person and other service users.

> When launching the consultation, the Government said that it did not intend to amend the Equality Act. The consultation document stated that service providers would still be able to exclude trans people from single-or separate-sex services in certain circumstances, and that this could also apply to someone who had changed their legal gender and was in possession of a GRC. The Government’s view at the outset of the consultation, therefore,was that the operation of the single-sex exception would not be affected by changes to the GRA

Re: Mark in the Middle

#556

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:42 AM UTC

mathgladiator wrote: post #185

lalaland1125 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stanc…

I feel JK Rowling was echoing a common sentiment in many women: “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” - Margaret Atwood

Atwood is not anti-trans and has criticised JKR for her bigoted beliefs.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#557

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:44 AM UTC

ptsneves wrote: post #115

onion2k wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn you see the plot point of a serial killer dressing as a woman as attack on trans? In itself, no. When it comes from someone who has a history of claiming trans people are dangerous and shouldn't be alone with women, yes. Context is important.

Could you provide a link to the context? I am skeptical but even so I upvoted you. I am sorry that your opinions lead to downvotes.

JKR write under the pen name Robert Galbraith.

Is it just a coincidence that the pen name she picked was the name of a gay conversion therapist?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath

Re: Mark in the Middle

#558

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:47 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #148

pjc50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of trans murderers is incredibly tiny - can you name even one? While trying to assert that being trans makes someone more likely to be a murderer is a slur.

Yeah don't think there are many of those. But here is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Schmidt#:~:text=Beate%20... . Not sure what the point is though. The discussion I tried to start was about all the normal cis-gender if you like kids who are brought up in a well meaning home, getting the right education and the right jobs but being extremely intellectually fragile. Not sure why trans suddenly needs to get…

Your argument seems to be:

"I can say what I like, and when the people I'm insulting turn round and argue back they're fragile.

But me, I'm not in anyway fragile when I'm trying to shut them down for criticising me."

Re: Mark in the Middle

#559

Post by xtian » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #540

xtian wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please explain the difference you’re talking about from the standpoint of a working class citizen of Iran in 1953 or of Chile in 1973?

The people of Iran and Chile were collateral damage of the US. Our government did not care one way or another about them. The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm. It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches…

How have you gained so much insight into Russia’s long-term geopolitical strategy and deduced that their primary goal is malice against American people? Through US media? Why do you think they’d invest considerable national resources into this malice for the powerless citizenry?

And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pinochet or in modern-day Fallujah? Or do you think polarization and misinformation are not the least of the strategies the US uses in its foreign interventions?

I’m legitimately confused by your viewpoint.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#560

Post by punkrex » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #468

slg wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin. Why do you believe that only the the second viewpoint will suffer from this slippery slope? We also seen similar examples in the first worldview.…

In fairness, Facebook's culpability in the Myanmar incident is because they launched in a language when they didn't have any moderators or AI who could understand the language. Further, much of the info was spread via memes - while extracting text from images is pretty good now, it wasn't always this way.

They were repeatedly warned by local groups, international NGOs and the US State Department that the speech was inciting violence. They refused to do anything and it escalated into a pogrom.