261–270 of 1001 posts
We should all strive to keep an open mind, especially to ideas contrary to our own. But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences. For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community: * Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.” * Heresy: “All ent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the reason it's sexist because it can be interpreted as "women are less capable than men"? You would say this other statement is false and sexist, correct?
"Women are less capable than men" is sexist; "The majority of women are physically and mentally incapable of running a Fortune 500 company" is a neutral hypothesis that can be asserted with anecdotal evidence, sociological studies, and if modern corporate leadership wasn't silent on the issue, there would also likely be firsthand testimony. For the record, the commenter above who casually states that "most women can'…
Unrelated: I don't understand what you mean by a "neutral" hypothesis. The hypothesis can be made for neutral or non-neutral goals, by a neutral or non-neutral person, but that's all true of any hypothesis.
We should all strive to keep an open mind, especially to ideas contrary to our own. But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences. For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community: * Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.” * Heresy: “All ent…
[deleted]
We should all strive to keep an open mind, especially to ideas contrary to our own. But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences. For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community: * Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.” * Heresy: “All ent…
We should all strive to keep an open mind, especially to ideas contrary to our own. But it’s not easy, because every group, in every society, organically develops its own heresies – things you cannot say without consequences. For example, here are some heresies common in the Silicon Valley startup community: * Heresy: “Government regulations are, on the whole, a net force for the good of humanity.” * Heresy: “All ent…
There is nothing brave or heretic about holding those views in Silicon Valley. SV skews quite left even though most people's actions don't match words. You'll find a high degree of acceptance of these views at all levels in SV including tech CEOs who worship at the altar of pseudo-socialism. Sometimes, you will get nuanced pushback (since these are very old ideas), but I've never seen a person cancelled in SV for hol…
Woo boy. Generally liked the concept for the essay, but this piece jumps out as problematic (or just poorly written): > The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. Really? He can’t think of a statement that is r…
Ghost writing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the reason it's sexist because it can be interpreted as "women are less capable than men"? You would say this other statement is false and sexist, correct?
"Women are less capable than men" is sexist; "The majority of women are physically and mentally incapable of running a Fortune 500 company" is a neutral hypothesis that can be asserted with anecdotal evidence, sociological studies, and if modern corporate leadership wasn't silent on the issue, there would also likely be firsthand testimony. For the record, the commenter above who casually states that "most women can'…
> The statement “very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively” is factually true, but implicitly sexist (very few men are capable either).
I read the "very few men are capable either" as "the problem is that running a F500 is hard, not being a women". There's also no "because" in there - they don't imply that women can't because men are mostly unable, they just say that it's similarly hard for men.
The missing component not mentioned in PGs essay is the acceleration and amplification of cancel culture via the Internet. Even a decade ago, tribes were geographically local. Today, your tribe is literally global. It knows no borders. Thus social media amplifies the effect of cancel culture and "same think".
Has anyone considered this whole phenomenon from a materialist analysis? Global society is more interconnected than before. The public discourse on social media platforms is huge. It’s also hugely polarized for multitudes of reasons. People (on the Internet) are getting into arguments with more people than ever before, usually with strangers. From that perspective, canceling/labeling heresy could potentially be thoug…
Agreed on the individual side. It's a response to decision fatigue. You cannot effectively understand every individual, their opinions and intentions, while scaling your personal "social network" up to thousands of people. So instead you apply a label and move on. But "modern discourse just can't scale" is a bit of a defeatist mindset. Surly there is a solution out there for reducing polarization.