How Software Companies Die (1995) • Hacker News Board

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#171

Post by grammaton » Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 3:11 AM UTC

ktd wrote: post #166

grammaton wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.…

>Women don't face a severe loss of professional status if they put on weight, unless their employer enjoys being cleaned out in court. You know, there are a lot of things that happen in the world despite not being legal.

Sure, but this wouldn't be one of them. If a woman even suggested their employer had discriminated against them on the basis of weight, then lawsuit or not, their employer would be crucified. Sorry, but being overweight is no worse on a woman than it is on a man - not that it's peachy for either of them.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#172

Post by grammaton » Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 3:13 AM UTC

gscott wrote: post #170

grammaton wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe what you want to say is that you want to declare war on him for his beliefs. Go after his writing works, even decades in the past, go after him for his current works, and seek to destroy him because he has a difference of opinion with him.

No, I really don't. Like I said, he can have whatever opinion he likes, but once he starts advocating that laws should reflect his opinion, it's stepped over a line. The relevant logical fallacy that you and others using this argument, by the way, is the tu quoque fallacy:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#173

Post by gscott » Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 4:00 AM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #172

gscott wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe what you want to say is that you want to declare war on him for his beliefs. Go after his writing works, even decades in the past, go after him for his current works, and seek to destroy him because he has a difference of opinion with him.

No, I really don't. Like I said, he can have whatever opinion he likes, but once he starts advocating that laws should reflect his opinion, it's stepped over a line. The relevant logical fallacy that you and others using this argument, by the way, is the tu quoque fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Avoiding harsh words could look like a logical fallacy but it is just being polite. Essentially, attacking an article he wrote about software development years ago is a lot like my attacking an article on software development written by a lgbt person because of their sexual orientation. People have avoided saying that to be polite. That is why I likened it to declaring war on the individual for their thoughts for one thing, expanding it to all things.

A simple statement on distaste for the individual is perfectly appropriate, and personal, and many people would agree with you on that one.

I am pretty sure if I remember right his words against gay people was at a small conference and then was blown up by the lgbt community. No one would have otherwise known... If I were on LGBT mailing lists I would probably get emails helping to fight "orson scott card" and asking me to donate.

I see it how it is, Orson Scott Card holds no influence to change laws, the gay movement has won on marriage. It is just a matter of time until it is upon us all. Far right Republicans use it as a wedge issue but it is becoming a weak issue. Even surveys of church going people show that the idea has a majority of popularity in the positive. The Pope doesn't even want to focus on it. No one wants to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole, it's a loser, the issue is lost. The last few holdouts will get ran over.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#174

Post by grammaton » Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 4:22 AM UTC

gscott wrote: post #173

grammaton wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I really don't. Like I said, he can have whatever opinion he likes, but once he starts advocating that laws should reflect his opinion, it's stepped over a line. The relevant logical fallacy that you and others using this argument, by the way, is the tu quoque fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Avoiding harsh words could look like a logical fallacy but it is just being polite. Essentially, attacking an article he wrote about software development years ago is a lot like my attacking an article on software development written by a lgbt person because of their sexual orientation. People have avoided saying that to be polite. That is why I likened it to declaring war on the individual for their thoughts for one…

"Avoiding harsh words could look like a logical fallacy but it is just being polite."

The logical fallacy is accusing people who consider intolerance unacceptable of themselves being intolerant. That is an example of tu quoque.

"A simple statement on distaste for the individual is perfectly appropriate, and personal, and many people would agree with you on that one."

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that many people - including Card - are going far beyond a "simple statement on distaste."

"I am pretty sure if I remember right his words against gay people was at a small conference and then was blown up by the lgbt community."

In fact you do not remember right. He has written numerous articles advocating for the treatment of homosexuals as second class citizens and even armed insurrection against the government should they treat homosexuals as equal under the law. You could easily find these articles if you spent two minutes on Google. They make a lovely companion to his article about how Obama is going to recruit an army of "urban thugs" to do is his bidding.

"I see it how it is, Orson Scott Card holds no influence to change laws, the gay movement has won on marriage."

Given the widespread hatred directed at them - which goes beyond mere personal distaste - and the numerous discriminatory laws that still remain on the books around the country, and the fact that there are still 33 states that specifically outlaw gay marriage, I wouldn't say that the issue is "won" by a long shot. Don't confuse some high profile victories with total victory.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#175

Post by rmc » Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #74

rmc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do share his distaste for the gay rights movement's propensity to attack and attempt to blacklist and attack their opponents. I have a dislike for the anti-gay rights movement's attempt to kill gay people. Communism has been far more harmful to the world than opposition to gay marriage. Spoken like a breeder.

Breeder, a heterophobic term of abuse, I presume?

It's about as close as you can get to a slur for heterosexuals. Hardly abusive.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#176

Post by aaronem » Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 3:33 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #163

aaronem wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having once had my arm broken by words on the subject of armed revolution, I unreservedly endorse your use of the adjective 'violent' in this case.

"Advocating violence" = "violent beliefs" has been a feature of the English language for ages, and I was using it correctly. I'm sorry if you don't like the way the language works, but it's not my fault.

Refusing to participate in the ideological degradation of language is everyone's responsibility.