Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Software Companies Die (1995)

cs.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#141

Post by [deleted] »

rmc wrote: post #113
jessaustin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy. In a society that hopes to remain free, there must be a difference between these. There must be space for dialogue, for experimentation, for uncertainty, for personal preference, for disagreement. "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory" is a totalitarian motto. For example, although I find Nancy Grace repulsive, illegitimate, unacceptable, unw…

That's the Paradox of Tolerance. Should a society trying to be a tolerate society tolerate intolerance? I say intolerance shouldn't be tolerated. Are you actually saying that we should have "discussion" or a "debate" about whether some people are people?

[deleted]

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#142

Post by grammaton »

jessaustin wrote: post #76
rmc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted You say that like it's a bad thing. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance (a) There are still lots of rights that many states and organisations do not recognise. (b) There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy.

There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy. In a society that hopes to remain free, there must be a difference between these. There must be space for dialogue, for experimentation, for uncertainty, for personal preference, for disagreement. "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory" is a totalitarian motto. For example, although I find Nancy Grace repulsive, illegitimate, unacceptable, unw…

Your argument is nonsense. People can voice intolerant opinions all they like, but when they make laws that affect a specific group of people on the basis of that intolerance, they've gone a long, far step beyond just voicing an opinion. You want to be intolerant? Great, have at it. But you don't get to back your intolerant beliefs up with intolerant laws. Intolerance in this context isn't about personally disliking a group of people, it's about actively discriminating against them on a widespread basis because of that dislike, and yes, there should be zero tolerance for that sort of thing.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#143

Post by grammaton »

myhf wrote: post #11
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #2

We all know that OSC is a horrible bigot, right? I feel like any sort of fatherly advice he emits needs to be suffixed with "...unless you're gay, then you should be in prison."

Once you realize that 100% of his writing is about the self-hating gay Mormon experience, you notice a lot more subtext. In this piece, the junior programmer who becomes a middle-manager to please the marketers is a metaphor for gay Mormons who marry women to please the church.

/pro forma comment about studies showing people with the most virulently homophobic attitudes tend to have repressed homosexual tendencies

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#144

Post by grammaton »

SwellJoe wrote: post #24
barking wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should consider what you just wrote and and what it says about you.

One shouldn't feel obligated to be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people with power and privilege against those who have less power and privilege (like a wealthy, straight, white male attacking LGBTQ folks). That's a very common tactic of bigots to claim that being told they should stop oppressing people is oppressive toward them. Demanding an end to oppression is not oppressive toward those who currently benef…

The problem with this line of argumentation is that you really don't need to invoke vague nominalizations like "power" and "privilege" to argue against this "i'm being oppressed because of my homophobic beliefs" nonsense. When you do, it invariably leads to the sorts of responses you're seeing from the likes of 127 and aaronem below.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#145

Post by grammaton »

theorique wrote: post #92
rmc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people who are denied their rights, beaten up and killed tend to get annoyed about it. They have a right to be annoyed.

Of course, but we've all heard the message a million times and we get it: bigotry is bad, OSC is a bigot against gays, and hence he is bad. No argument from me about those known truths. But does it have to be repeated every time the man's name gets mentioned like we don't know it?

Maybe because, in every audience, there are some people who have been beaten, or know people who have been beaten or killed, because of beliefs like this? Folks who've watched someone get their teeth kicked out over the sexual orientation tend to get a little...passionate...when a known homophobe's name comes up. They might even mention this out loud!

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#146

Post by grammaton »

xmonkee wrote: post #122
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, funny how it colors your opinion of a guy's reliability when he wants you and your friends thrown in prison as a warning to others. Crazy, I know!

It's understandable, but doesn't make it right. I personally dislike his opinions enough not to pay a dollar to watch his movies or read his books. I might even be loathe to give him enough respect to read this article, but that's a prejudice and it's not right.

This presumes that every belief and idea occupies an equal plane of legitimacy, and that everything is basically a matter of opinion. It's not.

His views are not acceptable. He's free to voice them all he likes, of course, but choosing to ignore him completely on the basis of some of his unacceptable views is not, in any way, "prejudice." Do keep in mind, please, that on the basis of just one thing - someone's sexual orientation - this guy is willing to give them legal status as second class citizens and incite armed rebellion against any government that would recognize their rights as people. If he's willing to do something that bad to someone solely on the basis of their sexual preferences, why on earth should anyone feel the least bit bad about choosing to simply ignore him on the basis of one of his beliefs?

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#147

Post by grammaton »

michaelochurch wrote: post #100

I like some of what this essay has to say, but generally disagree with this: When you emerge into daylight, you might well discover that you're a hundred pounds overweight, your underwear is older than the average first grader, and judging from the number of pizza boxes lying around, it must be spring already. That's depressing, and unhealthy. Programming well is a marathon, not a sprint. Neglecting your health burns…

"Also, the ability to get to 100 pounds overweight without only mild loss of professional and social status (instead of the severe loss women face) is a male privilege of sorts."

Women don't face a severe loss of professional status if they put on weight, unless their employer enjoys being cleaned out in court. And as for a loss of social status - try being an obese man for a while and see how that works out for you. They get ripped on just as bad as obese women.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#148

Post by daliusd »

speeder wrote: post #109
daliusd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is stupid, ignorant and unscientific, but not hateful. It might be used by people with hateful intentions however. "Argument from authority" is logical fallacy but a lot of people are still tricked by it.

We will see how unscientific it is in 50 years more or less...

Let's define what's scientific, which parts of that writing can be considered scientific by that definition and return in 50 years here. Really. I can add that to my TODO list :) Chances that I will be still alive are not very high but I still have those chances.

I want to define what's scientific because after 50 years in pessimistic scenario religion can be considered scientific and pope might be The Chief Scientist.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#149

Post by [deleted] »

tadaaaa wrote: post #87
myhf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you realize that 100% of his writing is about the self-hating gay Mormon experience, you notice a lot more subtext. In this piece, the junior programmer who becomes a middle-manager to please the marketers is a metaphor for gay Mormons who marry women to please the church.

Orson is probably a repressed gay himself, but it's impossible for him to admit this to himself. That's why he has to hate gays so much.

[deleted]

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#150

Post by yetanotherphd »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #52
nashashmi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that wrong again?! It is true that they are trying to gain legitimacy. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance. The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. Now we have not just reached giving gays equal treatment but making changes to accommodate a different lifestyle. The second point OSC makes is sourced in a discomfort fr…

> The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-black position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-woman position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-Jew positi…

The problem with this logic is that by characterizing preferring one lifestyle to another as an "anti-X position" and therefore something that is by default wrong, we encourage the dismantling of our entire culture.

If we are to say that the only acceptable view is that being gay is as good as being straight, then we must logically do the same for the following

* Being transgender * Being a sex worker * Eating shit for sexual gratification (no chance of AIDS!) * Having sex with animals (without harming them)

I'm not sure that any of the above are very immoral, but I'm not comfortable with teaching that they are ideal, or advisable. I'm also not comfortable with teaching children that becoming a sex worker is as good a career path as any other.

We as a society need to maintain a balance between protecting everyone's rights, and allowing people to have their own personal tastes and opinions. This balance should be based on enforcing the most basic laws that guarantee a person's right to life and safety. Gay people should be free from threats of violence. But so should everyone else, including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school. As for tastes and preferences, this isn't something we can decide in a top down way.

Post reply on HN