Great post. We have the same thing in Brazil. But I am unsure with this problem really starts in high school.
Actually, I think this problem starts on Facebook...
The Yale Problem Begins in High School
501–510 of 526 posts
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.
I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either way. Mozilla had a no win situation here…
Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at all.
In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be legal) and not for being a gay person.
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Right now we have a middle ground that plays favorites.
> That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. In what specific , concrete ways does it not work out the way you think it is intended? > One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Those are obviously potential rules, but I don't see that either o…
In what specific, concrete ways does it not work out the way you think it is intended?
I think we are starting to go in circles, but: It has the effect of cancelling out free discourse which is important to a functioning "democracy". A trivial example is that a business owner cannot be vocally anti-same sex marriage, because if she is, and a gay employee is fired for a "legitimate" reason, her behavior will go a long way towards convincing a jury.
Where this is going is why we are expanding the number of protected classes over time is that the real "intended result" is that you should not suffer at work for attributes that have nothing specifically to do with the job you are hired for.
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's now about repenting and wearing sackcloth. And it isn't even about Eich. People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. The message they were trying to send was simply, "we're really tired of this shit, and we want it to stop." [1]…
It was the activists who dragged Eich's donation from years ago into the spotlight, made it an issue, and demanded that he apologize. The "pseudo-tolerant stance" people are/were "sick of hearing" or "being a party to" would never have seen the light of day if the activists just left Eich's personal political beliefs alone. This is precisely a demand for repentance. Eich's stance was "pseudo-tolerant" because the act…
...the activists were demanding that [Eich] renounce his religious beliefs.
They did no such thing. Why do you think it is helpful to base your arguments on overtly counterfactual assertions, such as these?
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
The school (teachers and students together) recognizes an ideology (patriarchy) that they see as a problem and responds by creating a culture that opposes that ideology, in order to reduce the power of that ideology. I don't see any way to take a neutral stance on this issue, as ``doing nothing'' is supporting the status quo (patriarchy), so if you agree that patriarchy is a problem, then the school should be celebra…
So basically, anyone who disagrees with you is a racist/sexist?
In isolate, this is an absurd sentence. If I said "I don't think we should [do horrible thing to group x]", then you could easily retort with "yeah, but if I disagree with you I'm against group x?" in a "screw you" sort of way, and, well, it'd be true, wouldn't it?
I'm not saying anything either way about the GP, but I'd suggest it'd be better to tackle the point, rather than have such a knee-jerk reaction.
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was the activists who dragged Eich's donation from years ago into the spotlight, made it an issue, and demanded that he apologize. The "pseudo-tolerant stance" people are/were "sick of hearing" or "being a party to" would never have seen the light of day if the activists just left Eich's personal political beliefs alone. This is precisely a demand for repentance. Eich's stance was "pseudo-tolerant" because the act…
...the activists were demanding that [Eich] renounce his religious beliefs. They did no such thing. Why do you think it is helpful to base your arguments on overtly counterfactual assertions, such as these?
It's right there in your comment. You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold.
But even removing that point from my comment the rest stands. You wrote that people were "sick of hearing" about his views on gay marriage. Well all they had to do to stop hearing about it was to stop asking him about it.
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the framework of cold rational logic. In what ways could Eich's actions be construed as morally positive without resorting to superstitions and other faulty logic? You're absolutely right that my ideas are self-serving though. I am neither gay, nor black, nor a descendant of Abraham, but I am a human living in society. As such, I want to live as long as possible, and oppressing people to the point of ingesting…
> Under the framework of cold rational logic. In what ways could Eich's actions be construed as morally positive without resorting to superstitions and other faulty logic? Yeah that isn't an ethical framework. You were judging his actions under the framework of moral utilitarianism. The flaws with this can be found in a google search. His actions could be construed as moral under a rule-utilitarian moral framework an…
Hilariously, the two justifications for Eich as you've presented them would paint Hitler as moral. As Feynman was fond of reiterating, there is a vast difference between naming something and understanding something, and you've illustrated his point perfectly.
As you're no doubt well aware, marriage rights encompass many other legal rights, and denying those rights is granting gays a form of second-class citizenship. This official form of discrimination combined with the private sector hate they receive for not being in a protected class causes gays ti have a higher rate of suicide than the rest of the population, continuing Turing's tradition.
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is "traditional masculinity" and why is it bullshit? I ask because it seems this is going to end up as some kind of no-true-scotsman.
"Traditional masculinity" is the kind of masculinity that have enabled humanity to survived for millions of years. It includes traits such as: - Protecting women and children - Not crying when a tiger attack - Attacking the tiger instead, and to do so, requires - Forming a group of hunters, to go and kill that tiger, aka leadership - This also requires some amount of muscles, and aggression - because you can't kill a…
Are you fighting a lot of tigers and rapists these days?
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Traditional masculinity" is the kind of masculinity that have enabled humanity to survived for millions of years. It includes traits such as: - Protecting women and children - Not crying when a tiger attack - Attacking the tiger instead, and to do so, requires - Forming a group of hunters, to go and kill that tiger, aka leadership - This also requires some amount of muscles, and aggression - because you can't kill a…
Are you fighting a lot of tigers and rapists these days?
Well, rape culture is a huge problem on campus these days.
Also, just look at ISIS. Whenever they conquered a new place, they rape and sold all the women/girls into slavery. You seriously don't think rape exist anymore?
Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
My now-flagged comment said absolutely nothing about censorship or stifling. It said bad actions shouldn't be tolerated . Again, what is bad isn't up for vote. It can be deduced logically -- see my other posts. Otherwise, why do people not follow the "extremes" in their religious texts? You seem to hold a revisionist historical view that the civil rights movement was entirely unproductive, even though it was unpopula…
> It said bad actions shouldn't be tolerated. What do you mean by not tolerating if not stifling? If you look at the Mizzou and Yale things, stifling is exactly the right word: "we're just walking forward", "we can't hear you" and others. > You seem to hold a revisionist historical view that the civil rights movement was entirely unproductive, even though it was unpopular at the start (again, morality doesn't depend…
Once again, you're pretending I said things that I didn't actually say. I said that certain bad actions should not be tolerated. Where you get stifling from this, I don't know. In particular, your first post claimed that we shouldn't be intolerant of people implementing (not merely talking about) Biblical punishments on gays, which is what I claimed that our society rightfully would very harshly not tolerate, just as our society wouldn't tolerate government-sanctioned mass lynchings of blacks