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

Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

elaineou.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 307 posts

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#121

Post by darawk »

ender7 wrote: post #103
electrograv wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree with your premise that “the more voices the better” (i.e. the fewer voices that are silenced, the better). What you describe certainly covers much of what’s happening, but something else is happening too: Voices are being silenced. And to respond to your opening sentence, I don’t mean anyone is silenced physically (who does that?), but rather psychologically, culturally, and socially. That’s not a good t…

On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one. This all boils down t…

> On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one.

It is unclear that either of those notions are false. It is also unclear that either of their opposites is false. An environment that squelches debate of interesting, but sensitive questions is not a healthy one. The question of whether men are inferior to women (or vice versa) is definitely an interesting one, though perhaps poorly posed. Men and women are different in various ways, some of those differences may adapt each better to different tasks. Boiling that down to 'inferior' and 'superior' is facile. But the enterprise of elucidating those distinctions should not be taboo. It should be treated carefully, because the knowledge that may come from its investigation can lead people down dark paths, but that does not mean the question shouldn't be asked.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#122

Post by joshuamorton »

electrograv wrote: post #111
ender7 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one. This all boils down t…

Wouldn’t it be far more effective (and safe) to defeat bad ideas with evidence and reason?

It would, unfortunately that doesn't work. If it did, no one would believe that the Earth is flat.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#123

Post by whatshisface »

If political opinions can impact your career, then there's a massive potential for abuse. What happens if your boss fires you for supporting a measure that would damage your employer? Even worse, what if some corporate interest issue got programmed in to people by a PR campaign, and then your boss fired you for resisting that? You'd be torn apart by the public. There would be nowhere to turn.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#124

Post by fmihaila »

woodruffw wrote: post #89
fmihaila wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Diversity of thought is more important than diversity of skin color" is one of those dog whistles. I find it highly unlikely that a black woman in charge of Inclusion and Diversity at a most socially progressive company would blow into that particular dog whistle.

The point of a dog whistle is to say something with a secondary meaning that escapes some part of the audience. When that part of the audience starts using the dog whistle, the goal has been met: they're using it in good faith, while the original user is still signalling the secondary message. That's why "family values" works so well as a political slogan -- nobody is against "family values" in a superficial sense, a…

I see your point, but somebody losing their job in the blink of an eye for expressing their thoughts on a sensitive subject in good faith just because other people are trying to hijack the English language seems like an overreaction, no? That's what the OP, Jessica Livingston, Sam Altman, Tim Ferriss, and many HN posters here are pointing out.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#125

Post by mc32 »

ender7 wrote: post #103
electrograv wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree with your premise that “the more voices the better” (i.e. the fewer voices that are silenced, the better). What you describe certainly covers much of what’s happening, but something else is happening too: Voices are being silenced. And to respond to your opening sentence, I don’t mean anyone is silenced physically (who does that?), but rather psychologically, culturally, and socially. That’s not a good t…

On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one. This all boils down t…

I think there should be a difference between having a thought and doing something illegal based on that thought.

Someone can talk about selling illegal or unproven drugs and have opinions on how illegal drugs should be legal even if they are dangerous. That should all be allowed even if in practice it would be negative to society at large.

On the other hand if they acted on that belief then that should not be accepted by society and should be punishable.

Likewise, someone could have the opinion that whites are inferior racquetball players, so long as when selecting racquetball players in a professional team they do not select based on that opinion (given discrimination/selection based on race/skin is illegal).

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#126

Post by rectang »

electrograv wrote: post #111
ender7 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one. This all boils down t…

Wouldn’t it be far more effective (and safe) to defeat bad ideas with evidence and reason?

That's what's happening: bad ideas are being defeated. But if those bad ideas are still near and dear to you even while society moves on, it feels bad.

Not everyone has to be persuaded. Some will have to be left behind.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#127

Post by the_cat_kittles »

eksu wrote: post #71
lotsofpulp wrote: post #10

Trump is literally putting the health of my country's citizens at risk for political posturing, I think animosity towards him is easily warranted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-g... Apparently, there's nothing better our tax dollars can be doing than destroying some of the most important and successful organizations human civilization has managed to create.

You are literally part of the phenomena described. This, "I'm right, you're wrong, this is the only lens to look at this through" positioning is really bad. In Policy Debate (CEDA, Cross-Examination) it's part of the sport to take mundane issues like creating a tax credit for electric vehicles and both teams try to extrapolate out to the worst possible impacts. Nuclear war, mass famine, extinction, etc. It seems to m…

"you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are"

wrong. plain and simple. im anti-murder, i dont need to listen to pro-murder people. im anti-rape, i dont need to listen to pro-rape people. there are issues that have a wrong and a right side, unless you really want to go down some dumb freshman philosophy major rabbit hole. the earth is not flat, yet there is a flat earth society. the list is endless.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#128

Post by yongjik »

closure wrote: post #90

I stopped reading here: “If San Francisco residents really believed that sea levels were rising, they’d have all sold their homes by now.” Apparently the author has never been to San Francisco or seen the sea level estimates for the next 30-70 years. The last time I looked the northernmost and easternmost parts of SF will have some trouble, but by far the biggest areas of concern are east of 101 south of the city. An…

Yeah, seriously. Anyone who's ever driven in SF should know this city is not going to be underwater (well, mostly). There are hills smack in the middle of SF that are > 200 ft (~60 m) high[1].

Meanwhile, to pick a random example, "Much of Florida has an elevation of less than 12 feet (3.7 m), including many populated areas such as Miami which are located on the coast."[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hills_in_San_Francisco

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Florida

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#129

Post by mcguire »

publidat wrote: post #94

I feel like it’ll take another dozen years before some people are ready to admit that “Liberal McCarthyism” is exactly what emerged around 2017. And in the meantime, as someone who’s not interested in waiting on the current power-brokers in SV to admit to it, I think it makes sense for those who are the primary target of this new McCarthyism to engineer a way to preseve their rights. Depending on SV’s prevailing powe…

Personally, I wouldn't start worrying about "Liberal McCarthyism" in the United States until liberals have control of the presidency, the congress, and at least a fair majority of the states.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#130

Post by jonathankoren »

pretendscholar wrote: post #73
wavefunction wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not his views, his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans depending on their sexual preference. He lost the confidence of the internationally focused diverse organization he was charged with leading due to that financial support.

>his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans depending on their sexual preference. ...So his political views.

Yes, his political views, which ran counter to the Foundation’s views. His actions hurt the brand and undermined the mission.
Post reply on HN