161–170 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Feminist blogs and News Agencies" Is what I said. I don't understand what you are implying though.
That your belief that there are entire news agencies corrupted by feminism is revealing.
> (Feminist blogs) and (news agencies)
That you assumed one of two equally appropriate interpretations of this (admittedly awkward) phrasing and jumped to conclusions is even more revealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That your belief that there are entire news agencies corrupted by feminism is revealing.
> Feminist (blogs and news agencies) > (Feminist blogs) and (news agencies) That you assumed one of two equally appropriate interpretations of this (admittedly awkward) phrasing and jumped to conclusions is even more revealing.
There are two convenient fact omissions when talking about sexism and racism towards Pao: the fact that the fired employee was female too. And the fact that Pao is of asian origins and that Asians are traditionally over-represented in SV and not traditional victims of racism in technology. Those facts made the case for a racist and sexist crowd a bit too nuanced for a front page. (Or maybe Asians and Indians are offi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my pet peeves with reporters and writers is that they believe themselves to be studied, enlightened and informed, more so than their audience. And if true this would be great. If true they could inform me and give me better understanding of the world around me. Sadly, I find, most of them rely on gut, opinion and lack rigor. They lack basic scientific investigative techniques. So we end up reading mostly opini…
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the mainstream US news media consists of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, and the Washington Post. Could you cite an example in any of those four publications where undue weight was given to "antivax" people? Just so you know: I 1000% agree with you that giving equal weight to antivax crazies and professional epidemiologists would constitute "un…
I want to know why something might work not simply feel good that something might work. Let's take the minimum wage. From a layman perspective I think a higher national minimum wage would be welcome and adjust it to inflation. But I'd like for this opinion to be validated, not simply presented as unquestionably good.
I mean, let's say we standardize at 15 or 20 or a speculative $30hr. What would the impact be. Will it lead to more automation? So higher pay for those with jobs but more unemployed? Who becomes the undesirable and unhirable (the inexperienced)? If it leads to higher unemployment (speculation) what are our responsibilities as a society and who has preference (citizens vs non citizens)? Do we train?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That your belief that there are entire news agencies corrupted by feminism is revealing.
> Feminist (blogs and news agencies) > (Feminist blogs) and (news agencies) That you assumed one of two equally appropriate interpretations of this (admittedly awkward) phrasing and jumped to conclusions is even more revealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to make an argument that this piece is "pro-censorship", you're going to have to support it with evidence from the text. I just took the time to reread it, and I do not see support for censorship in it.
I'd specifically point to the Hero vs Angry Mob motif and the quote "bullying, harrassment[ sic ] and ugly behavior are out of control on the web," which implies that they must be brought under control. Obviously within the context of the overall spin towards sexism as the sole cause we discussed over there -> ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9871281 )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about an older white male, from a business background, who was openly trying to institute censorship and monetization and was unabashedly ignorant of Reddit culture? I'm fairly confident that a CEO like that would have been significantly more hated by Redditors. The issue wasn't race or gender, it was culture .
The hate for Ellen Pao on Reddit seemed to start with her gender discrimination lawsuit. Also what monetization?
I won't disagree that race and gender were used as part of that hatred, that's obviously the case. I think, though, that it's easy to mix up whether things are tools that people use to attack someone they already hate vs. reasons for hating them in the first place. I don't honestly know which it was in this case, but it's not hard for me to imagine that it was the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an opinion piece, it's a biased piece. Let's compare the headlines and ledes, which set the tone of a piece (some might argue they're all that matter). Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief 1. Ellen Pao, the interim chief executive of Reddit, resigned from the online message board on Friday after a week of ceaseless criticism from scores of angry users over the handling of an employee departure. This…
I think we mostly agree. I'm willing to concede that the piece is "biased" --- I don't know if it is, because I think misogyny is in fact the most important attribute of the Pao story, but that alone forces me to accept that reasonable people could believe the piece wasn't perfectly balanced. So when you say: I'm not saying that anything in the article is false. Nor do I think it's an opinion piece – it absolutely fa…
Actually, as a guy who refreshes the news every 20 minutes (in particular the NYT), I think we've finally arrived at exactly the point. I'd argue there's two groups of objective (as in not editorial) news reporting: summary and expository. The first is balanced, toned roughly at the median reader's viewpoint and getting across maybe the middle ~50% of the public's view/opinion/reaction. The second goes in deep on one side, really digging into who the different factions are, what they believe and why. It explains maybe the 45-95th percentiles – a touch of lip service for the opposition, but that's not what we're here to see.
Each side has merits and drawbacks. Obviously summaries are more neutral and matter-of-fact, but they gloss over important stuff. Expositions are one-sided – Fox News at the extreme – but they're where you start feeling empathy (or antipathy) instead of just facts. Yes, they're biased. That's the point.
The first article was an (incomplete) member of the former category. The second article was certainly legitimate as a member of the latter – I might disagree while reading it but I wouldn't cry foul that it was published.
My claim is exactly that the Times erred by updating instead of posting this article as another. I expect the top story on a piece to be neutral and follow-ups to take sides. By updating the original article instead, the Times is saying that the way they write it is what happened! Where you fall in the spectrum isn't the question. If you can concede that the middle ground on this issue is somewhere to the sexists' side of "Hero Pao was chased out by shrill angry mob," the New York Times' reportage^Weditorial decisions were bad.