Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#51

Post by rdtsc » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:36 AM UTC

afpx wrote: post #24

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ...

> If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ...

You'll have a few dollars for sure. However you probably also won't hear from people who couldn't say it. Because well, they ... didn't say it. The idea I think is that those who mention it claim they speak for some larger group who couldn't. Don't know how true that is, but that's the idea.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#52

Post by pg_bot » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:37 AM UTC

I can probably add a few more to this list:

"Income inequality is not an actual problem"

"The affordable care act was bad for America"

"It would be beneficial if we got rid of all government guaranteed loans for university tuition"

"People should be allowed to own automatic weapons"

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#53

Post by sliverstorm » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:37 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #29

> If San Francisco residents really believed that sea levels were rising, they’d have all sold their homes by now Anyone who says that is, frankly, unobservant. We have government bail outs for people who live in areas that frequently flood due to things that have nothing to do with climate change, such as normal rain and hurricanes. Many of these areas flood almost predictably, yet we keep providing government suppo…

And/or people are just banking on getting theirs & getting out before it gets bad.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#54

Post by michaelhoffman » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:37 AM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #12

> If San Francisco residents really believed that sea levels were rising, they’d have all sold their homes by now. I wonder what effect the hills have on that. I googled "sea level rise san francisco" and found this: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/san-francisco.shtml At the default view of +7m, it seems like the parts of the city that used to be water (Marina, Mission Bay, parts of the Mission, east part along the…

The IPCC predicts that, in 2100, sea level at San Francisco will increase between 0.2 m and 1.0 m. It is possible to think that the best models of climate change are correct and that (a) the sea level is rising, and (b) most of San Francisco won't be submerged anyway.

I wouldn't buy property in Mission Bay, though.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#55

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:37 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#56

Post by goatsi » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #29

> If San Francisco residents really believed that sea levels were rising, they’d have all sold their homes by now Anyone who says that is, frankly, unobservant. We have government bail outs for people who live in areas that frequently flood due to things that have nothing to do with climate change, such as normal rain and hurricanes. Many of these areas flood almost predictably, yet we keep providing government suppo…

The scale of the impact from rising sea levels will be much different than a single flood or hurricane. Government resources will be very thinly stretched and the bailouts will likely be much less than what people have invested in their property.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#57

Post by dionidium » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #39

For better or worse, popular society has become a lot better at detecting dog whistles. "Diversity of thought is more important than diversity of skin color" is one of those dog whistles. I don't find the discussion itself objectionable, but I also don't want to grant intellectual capital to anybody who is going to use a controversial topic in bad faith to control the discussion. I don't want to be used to legitimize…

In my experience, most accusations of dog whistling on the internet range from misguided to incoherent. It's worth remembering what a dog whistle is, in the first place. It's a tactic used by politicians to assure a certain set of voters that you're on their side while maintaining public deniability of unpopular beliefs. It's a way of talking to the public that guarantees that each constituency hears what they want to hear.

How does any of that apply to what some dude says on the internet? It doesn't. Who would they even be dog whistling for or to? Nobody. It's nonsensical. It's really just a way to say, "I think you believe something other than what you're actually saying."

In other words, it's a polite way to call somebody a liar. Which is fine, I guess, but if you want to call somebody a liar, just call them a liar. We don't need a new term for that, especially one that already has a perfectly good meaning in another context.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#58

Post by chasing » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

You can say any of those things in Silicon Valley.

I mean, people might make some judgments about you. But that happens whenever you state any opinion, especially if it isn't the mainstream.

I think a lot of people are used to saying what's on their mind without consequence. They're used to other types of people remaining quiet on certain topics -- especially topics related to race, gender, and sexuality. And that's changing.

So: For some people it's a shock and they suddenly feel attacked from all sides for opinions they've been vocal about for years. Feels weird. But in many cases what's actually happening is people who have historically been silent are suddenly speaking up and offering their own differing opinions.

For example, it used to be acceptable to behave in certain ways towards women. Some men didn't see the problem because women wouldn't or couldn't speak up to make their opinions known. Now many women feel more empowered and it turns out many attitudes men have about women that seemed mainstream are in fact controversial (or, worse, actually destructive). And they always were. The opposing voices just hadn't been speaking. Now they are.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#59

Post by dahdum » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

That article is completely out of line. For the record:

I think SF is doing a great job tackling homelessness, human excrement management, and broad daylight IV drug abuse. They just need to raise taxes to increase funding for all the really successful programs underway. I'm sure they've got a handle on it. It's a wonderful vacation destination for families.

Affordable housing will definitely be solved by higher taxes, implementing rent control, and subsidizing below market rents in luxury buildings. It's important to keep the character of our neighborhoods by preventing higher density housing.

Re: Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley

#60

Post by jonathankoren » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

insickness wrote: post #38

ej_campbell wrote: post #19

The cherry picking of this article is extreme. A company chooses to not employ someone based on a multiple page essay and this article takes a sentence and tries to make it look ridiculous.

What else from that essay was grevious enough to fire him?

The whole thing made a textbook hostile workplace. He said the people around him only got their jobs because of their race or gender and were therefore incompetent.