It should be noted that this article was posted a few weeks ago, and is not directly related to Sam Altman's recent (controversial) essay: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924093
"Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco."
I also feel comfortable speaking about controversial things foreign cultures would not have the appropriate context to judge, out of concern for being rude, culture value differences etc.
I'm losing a lot of respect lately as it turns out more and more people involved with YC seem somehow okay with Peter Thiel and Trump supporters. Even VICE for fucks sake (Gavin McInnes's all white trash fuck boys) etc.
Have a little respect for your country fellow Trump supporters!!! You have a fucking KGB puppet in charge! Actively working against the long term interests of your country who also happens to assault women, writes asinine shit and gets in the bed with the enemy.
that's enough anger seething...im just anxious that the US is veering off course and into a different beast that would allow more nastier beasts to come into power.
Honest question: How does New York compare on this spectrum? I had the impression that the political atmosphere there is very similar to California. I loved New York City when I visited, so I’m very curious to learn more about it from this perspective.
If you don’t feel safe talking about it publicly, feel free to email me (you can track it down via my account). I wish I didn’t have to say that last sentence, but this is the USA we live in right now.
You are also apparently being downvoted for daring to mention that you were yelled at for your mother voting for Trump when she didn't. The communication shut-down knows no bounds anymore.
I don't agree with most if any of the list in the article, but you are in a filter bubble if you are unaware of the large swaths of the US and other parts of the world where these attitudes are tolerated if not prevalant.
I'd say most liberal metro areas, with slightly more leniency in the midwest. I imagine it's worst in SF/SV, but that's just my subjective view based on a few visits.
No. Most of these are pretty mainstream moderate to conservative positions. Depending on how you measure it, roughly half the country believes at least some of the stuff on that list.
Perhaps yours is really more of a comment about the homogeneity of the company you keep than on the universality of their beliefs?
I said "most", so yes there are definitely cases like the one you mention. In general, the larger the corporation, the more likely your freedom to have "diverse" opinions is diminished.
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 me that we're adopting this quality for our public discourse, and that's a bad way to go. There is no 'discourse' in debate, that's an activity about winners and losers, not about truth seeking or implementing any real policy.
Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are.
"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.
But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are.
That doesn't mean those sides are equal. Take anti-vaxxing and young-earth creationism: do they offer any truth or useful insights for policy proposals?
e: Another point: why should I not hold animosity towards hucksters who hamper efforts to slow climate change, or indirectly cause deaths from preventable diseases?
No, but those people get to have a say in our government. So in some ways yes, they are equal. If you want that to change, be a missionary and convince them, but to deny them representation is violence upon a class.
I'm not "denying representation", I'm saying that there aren't two sides to every issue, there are ideas which have been proven false and offer no gain from discussion.
> Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are.
Sure, every issue has at least two sides...but aren't there issues where one side is so wrong that it is reasonable to conclude that those who take that side have something wrong with them?
For example, at the risk of having someone who doesn't understand the nuances of Godwin's law trying to incorrectly apply it here, take the issue of whether or not the Nazi attempt to implement an answer to their perceived problems with Jews was a good solution. If someone says the Nazi solution was a good one, am I supposed to just say "Oh well...two sides to every issue! We'll have to agree to disagree!" and just ignore that they support genocide?
Or how about someone who believes that the Earth is flat? They dismiss evidence such as the curvature you can see from a high altitude plane, photos from space, and everything else that says it is not as fake that a vast conspiracy of government and academia is forcing upon us. Two sides to every issue, right, so I should not infer that the person is an idiot and so hold their opinion on other matters lower than I normally would?
Yes, there may be two sides to every issue, but what side you take does say something about you. On issues of fact, it says something about your ability to understand facts and the reason from them. On more subjective issues which position says something about your morals and ethics.
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 bay) are most vulnerable. The interior looks like less of a problem.
Maybe because it's not true outside of certain high-risk neighborhoods? (And those are also higher risk for earthquake damage for the same underlying reason.) People who are buying property in SF can and do look up these risks.
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.
True, but I listened to his podcast on the history of JS, and he was hired to put Scheme in the browser, but then management decided it needed to be something else, which turned into a compromise with Sun because they were wanting Java. And then there was a limited time to make it happen before Netscape shipped.
After that time, whenever Brendan wanted to fix things in the language, he couldn't, because you can't break the web for people already using things as they are. This happened several times.
I'm on the fence about this, especially given that it's my livelihood.
Sure, I worked through the bad old days of writing `document.getElementById()` by hand, Scriptaculous vs MooTools, mountainous files of jQuery, Backbone vs Angular, and CoffeeScript when it was cool, but I can't deny that things aren't so bad nowadays.
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.
Political views only matter when your company markets itself on values. Oracle and Google aren't about freedom, Mozilla is, GNU/linux is. When you want to be the rudder for a company based on values your background needs to be unassailable, in other words, boring. You can't be boring when you take an active role in a cause that is directly against your employees.
Yes I must not have made my point. His political views matter only because the company is based upon values such as openness and inclusiveness. As the one running the ship his political views would have been antithetical to the company mission based on his current actions, which is why the employees revolted.
Fake news. Employees didn’t revolt - it looks as if you may be referring to six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted. They worked for a different organization. They almost all left soon after I did anyway.
You're obviously closer to the issue than myself and I'm truly glad you moved on to create something new and different with Brave. I didn't follow the issue entirely closely, but it seems that there were quite a few more than six people in the company that were upset about your monetary contributions. Realistically, you have to know that saying it was just six people that were upset about your monetary contribution is hyperbole.
My comment doesn't just pertain to you nor did I really dig into the merits of your situation, but it does serve as a valid test case that even someone with your obvious and deep technical skills requires more than just those skills to be in alignment with what the company needs from a leader.
Near as I can tell, there were employees unhappy but not about to quit, some of whom I met and talked with before I left. And when I left there were many unhappy employees, of various backgrounds. I know because a large number sent me hand-written notes (very much appreciated).
To this day you can find people angry on both "sides" of the fake-news version of what happened. It constitutes an open wound for Mozilla which people salt and pick at over more recent or ongoing PR mistakes. That's a shame, because the truth is far removed from the cover story. I'll get to it as a memoirist, if ever, only years from now.
Truly, thanks for sharing this. I can't imagine how much anxiety and stress the situation created, and I'm quite sure that you had quite a few people that truly enjoyed and respected your leadership. I think your memoir would definitely find an audience. Best of luck to you in your current and future pursuits.
Mozilla is a private organization where Brendan Eich served at the pleasure of its body. What if he was pushing to rescind suffrage for women or to re-instate Jim Crow? Pushing for the legalization of child cannibalism by funding legislative efforts in that direction?
What if a woman pushed for the disenfranchisement of men believing that society would be better for it? I'd at least like to hear her out, maybe I'd even support it but I can't know if I can't even hear the view. I have no problem personally with hearing political views because I believe that over time and through discourse human society converges on better outcomes. Someone could state that they would like the return of Jim Crow but I'm confident that the people who hold those views in the long run will be outnumbered.
So if a company decided to fire someone because they supported legalization of hard drugs (another controversial topic), including giving money to political organizations, you'd fully support them?
Or it crystal clear that legalization of hard drugs is one of those ideas that is so obviously right than any opposition to it should be squelched?
I find it troubling that views based deeply in religious beliefs (gay people are unnatural and somehow should be sidelined for their differences makes sense only inside of a highly religious context) or just pure unscientific opinion are somehow being taken as a political view.
Back in the days, skin colour was a political view. That was a dumb idea. And the effects of that is still felt up to today. These days sexual orientation and climate change are political views.
This isn't ok. And we shouldn't treat it as such. Bigotry and un-science don't deserve a seat as a "reasonable voice" at the table of progress no matter who you are.
Why not let ideas be judged on their own merit, rather than pre-judged and banned from conversation?
Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
> Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration?
Absolutely. Few things to note here:
1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress.
2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table
3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room.
4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.
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.
Citations are worthless when the reasoning that is citing them is shoddy. If you cite things, it makes the facts that you're referencing true. It doesn't make the logic of your argument true.
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.
It's pretty clear you didn't actually read it. I didn't at first either because I trusted the sources I was reading to give me a fair summary. That was a mistake. I didn't necessarily agree with what he said, but it was nowhere near as bad as what 90% of sources were reporting.
Agreed, Damore's essay was a rambling, illogical mess. Only revered by weak minds who'd already been fooled by alt-right ideology. He deserved to be fired.
His conduct after his firing vindicated that decision too. The dullard even had his Twitter handle as "Fired For Truth", as if he'd written some incontrovertible work of brilliance, rather than the actual half-baked mess he spluttered up.
I think the greater concern are weaponized codes of conduct in an at-will employment environment. If you can’t say something without losing your job, you’re not free to say something.
You can take every effort to respect someone else, not allow any of your behavior to be construed as harassment, and still be out the door because someone objects to or is offended by what you’ve said.
I’m talking from an employment perspective where your wage is on the line.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the US that there is no exception to free speech for hate speech. If this is not preferred, your argument is with the judicial branch or Congress and a constitutional amendment, not me.
You’re confusing the state with a private actor. Yes, private actors have a lot of power in this world, but that’s not what the law is about. The law is about the government, not private actors.
If you don’t allow businesses to fire people, then you’re compelling speech. Think about it. Say you’re a restaurant and you have a waiter that habitually refers to guests with a constant stream of expitives that would make a sailor blush. It gets to the point that it hurts your business. Patrons stop coming in. You can’t recruit. Do you fire him? Of course not! You’d be impugning his free speech and that’s horrible.
So the restaurant closes, and you start another. And guess who shows up for a job? Sailor Blusher. Do you hire him? Of course! You have to because if you didn’t, you’d be infringing in his right to get paid to berate strangers!
This story isn’t an exaggeration. This is the logical outcome.
I would say it is not about private vs government, it is a question of legal Vs illegal. IANAL, If my recollection is correct, all speech, except those containing immediate/imminent threat/ incitement of violence is legal. That is the protection that Constitution affords the citizens.
If companies are placing further restrictions on what can be said at the threat of people loosing their jobs, then they are not affording the same kind of protection that citizens enjoy viz the government, to be applied regarding the employees to themselves.
I’m really sympathetic to this idea, but it’s not a really tenable. How does this solve the restaurant problem? It doesn’t. The only real solution is to have a strong government provided safety net. The government is the only counter to strong private actors.
Doesn't make it okay. It used to be considered a left position to believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We also used to argue in favor of freedom of speech. One thing hasn't changed, which is that the people in power want to suppress any speech they disagree with.
> 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.
You’re probably right to some degree, but remember that your argument is bi-directional.
(I’m sure someone can explain this better, but I’ll give it a shot.)
As a silly example, let’s say 85% of an area believes that carbonation is harmful to health. 10% are indifferent, and 5% believe that it’s good for health.
One carbonation lover happens to be bold enough to drink carbonated beverages in public. Many bystanders walk past thinking, “Wow - that guy is nuts. But, oh well, it’s his life.” One of the carbonation haters walks by and happens to be bold enough to challenge the guy and say, “Drinking carbonated beverages is stupid, man!”
The carbonation lover and hater then get into a visible argument. Naturally, a few more people get involved in the discussion. Ultimately, outnumbered, the carbonation lover goes home feeling misunderstood and defeated.
He meets up with a buddy of his at the carbonation lovers group, and they trade similar stories and conclude that the area is just intolerant of carbonation lovers. The next time, they decide to drink in public more defiantly and with some defensiveness. They start to wear T-shirt’s that say, “Carbonation is not a crime!”
What they missed is that for that one person out of 100 who challenged them in public, 84 walked by and didn’t.
That's a good example, I can see how in general it is a bidirectional thing. In this case I think the outcome is that the carbonation lover who drank in public is then fired from their job (Denise Young Smith or D'Amore, not that I personally agree or condone what they said or did, just using them as examples here). Not only that even discussing carbonation at all is swept under the rug and covered up quickly (for example, this whole thread is already flagged). They probably expect to be able to say they like carbonation or even drink it in public and even argue and face criticism for it. What they don't expect is to be attacked, fired or punished for it.
> 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 support to keep people living there, or to help them move to someplace that floods less.
There is no way that something similar won't happen to people when climate change induced sea level rises starts making some coastal property unlivable.
Also, a good fraction of the population live in areas where there is a good chance that something will destroy their house over the next 30 or 40 years. Besides the aforementioned floods, there are earthquakes, wild fires, and tornadoes.
The only real difference between those and gradual sea level rise destroying your home is that with sea level rise afterwards you have to go live somewhere else instead of rebuilding where the old house was. No one claims that people who live in states that can have earthquakes or tornadoes do not really believe that earthquakes or tornadoes happen.
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.
You want to know what I think is way, way scarier than self-censoring in SV?
Is that as a CULTURE we are self-censoring due to the Chilling Effect from learning that the NSA collects unfathomable dossiers on every citizens private browsing behavior.(1)
It is sad and hilarious that SV leaders - who have spawned & continue to lobby for anti-privacy technology in the name of data collection and personal information dealing to sell advertising are crying that they can't be honest with their peers.
If we want people to be more open and honest, to be open to broader views than their own how about start by fixing the fucking group-think algorithms that FB / Twitter / Goog are so fond of?
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 more extreme views. Sometimes people don't bring these topics up in bad faith, but it's been my experience that they're the minority.
I'd argue that popular society has an increasing false positive rate when detecting dogwhistles, and that the problem is exacerbated by increasingly partisan politics.
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.
> "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, and half of the population understands that "family values" is really code for "christian values."
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.
> is to say something with a secondary meaning that escapes some part of the audience.
> nobody is against "family values" in a superficial sense, and half of the population understands that "family values" is really code for "christian values."
If half the population is christian the other half is probably also not completely oblivious to what that other half understands by family values.
I think the best way to overcome this "dog whistle" problem is to appropriate it and steal it. "Family values" -- "good, we want to have gay, transgender, happy and safe families and we love our family values".
"Diversity of thought is more important?" - "Yes it is, and we find that people of different ages, races, genders, nationalities, educational, social and economic background end up with the best diversity of thoughts and ideas so we go out and actively recruit accordingly". What I see tech companies doing is being very vocal about diversity then turning around and recruiting young white men from a few top universities. Or saying women should be equal but then paying them less. Or covering up harassment and abuse (thinking of Uber here).
> a black woman in charge of Inclusion and Diversity at a most socially progressive company would blow into that dog whistle.
So she is Uncle Tom's wife and is secretly dog whistling to the white supremacists.
That's part of the reason people are not speaking what they think -- because they end up getting responses like that, which are completely indistinguishable from a comedy skit or an article from The Onion.
It's like talking to someone and hearing them try to convince you about contrails or lizard people. You can't argue at that point, because you realize it's way beyond that, so you just kind of keep quiet an nod. Especially if that person is your boss or coworker.
> “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation,” the inaugural diversity chief said.
> ”Diversity is the human experience,” she said, according to Quartz. “I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”
This is what Denise Young Smith, 20 year HR veteran at Apple said. She 'resigned' and was replaced after the ensuing outrage.
I want to be clear: it's bad to fire people just for expressing a different opinion. But that's not what my comment was about -- it was about how, as a society, we've learned to detect and avoid conversations that are probably faithless.
Where "probably" is a subjective sense being carried forward by a mob who presume to have an infallible sense of truth and have no qualms with applying their certainty toward shutting down anyone who Bad Speaks.
I don't shut anybody down. My time and attention are limited resources, and I don't like wasting them in a discussion that the other party is using in bad faith. To that end, I avoid starting questions that (through experience) tend to go down that path.
Like I said in the GP, I don't find the discussion itself objectionable. I've just applied a heuristic to determine who I have the discussion with.
If you want to have a workforce representative of a given community, and the characteristics of that community are evaluated along ethnic or skin color, then diversity thereof is key.
If you want a workforce representative of people's economic status, then you evaluate on economic characteristics of the community.
IF you're looking for creativity then diversity in thought is paramount [however, that does not imply not guarantee diversity in any other human feature.]
The issue can become muddled due to a couple of reasons. Companies while looking to address ethnic diversity imbalance will imply that increasing ethnic diversity will coincidentally result in creative diversity [with the implication that greater creative diversity results in company success]. Their confounding of these things make things muddled.
If diversity of culture were necessary to succeed, then relative monocultures like China and Japan would never succeed.
And if someone were to say the reverse, that diversity of skin color is more important than diversity of thought, what would you call that? Virtue signal?
I think you can say those things. You won’t get many takers but they aren’t as radioactive as LGBT issues, race issues, gender issues. Nobody’s going to call your boss and demand you be fired for saying those things.
Interesting. What's your thinking for #1, #2, and #4? (I'm asking genuinely).
Another I'll add from my list: "The social costs and spillover of disruption are not fairly priced today, representing a market failure; it's a problem akin to pollution in pre-regulation 19th century manufacturing."
The election of Trump and enthusiasm to "build a wall" to protect manufacturing jobs reflects a real pain felt by a large number (maybe the majority) of Americans who are scared about their future job prospects and inability to provide for their families; many tech companies today are making their problems worse. These externalities are being foisted on society and these workers, who are not involved in the disrupting technology itself, and the companies have no obligation to pay for this cost.
An assumption that disruption will "work itself out in the long run" isn't acceptable (nor is it necessarily true). I think it's like environmental pollution in the 70's, before we had the EPA to penalize the behavior. It's also accelerating, and could reach a tipping point that would put serious risks on our political system and social fabric.
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.
> I think a lot of people are used to saying what's on their mind without consequence.
No, it's simpler still. What is happening is that conservatives feel awkward and nervous being a minority (irony much?), so they look to strawman arguments to make themselves feel better.
Obviously you can have those fights if you want. You just can't find many people to agree with you. This is like walking into a megachurch in Mississippi and complaining that no one wants to listen to your opinions on reproductive health care.
I couldn't agree more. In a town like SV where almost everyone is liberal, the problem is conservatives.
Oh, do I need to state that was sarcasm?
> This is like walking into a megachurch in Mississippi and complaining that no one wants to listen to your opinions on reproductive health care.
How can you not see the irony in this? Your example is a bad outcome. SV doing the reverse is bad. Not there are ideas that are OK and ideas that are bad, contextually, and alienating people is all good and fine, where my badness is OK if it is proportional and opposite to your badness. Intolerance ITSELF is the problem, fullstop, no matter the "rightness" of the idea.
We live in a diverse world, and finding ways to get along is the key. How can we do that when any form of alienation is defended?
Argument isn't the same as "alienation" though. The post is a bunch of whining about how you "can't say" stuff because people won't like you if you do. Well, duh.
What you and the poster say you want is Free Speech in some kind of abstract principled sense. What you actually want is a safe space where people won't argue with you for believing different things.
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 thing.
Giving everyone a voice is good precisely because it facilitates debate, such that good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas sink. Silencing voices opposed to your own views may serve you in the short term, but as a principle it’s incredibly dangerous and almost certainly harmful in the long run.
Edit: P.S. This doesn’t mean that bad ideas shouldn’t float down to a point where their advocation questions ones’ rational credibility, nor does it mean we should be entitled to say anything we want (no matter how extreme) without consequence.
For example, if you blurted out “The earth is flat - it’s all a conspiracy!”, most people would shake their heads in pity and keep walking away. But if someone presents evidence or ideas to a claim so extreme, the degree of our interest must be proportionate to the credibility of the evidence and the logical consistency of the argument — not the social stigma attached to the topic. This is a subtle distinction, but so important.
Social stigma can serve perhaps as a caching mechanism of consensus, but it is a tool we must wield with extreme caution.
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 to the fact one group is trying to add a number of new entries to the list of censurable topics. It's fine to disagree with that, but then you have to state a) what topics you think shouldn't be added to the list and b). why. When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible.
[EDIT: To explain things a little more. Societies must limit some forms of speech because some speech limits who can be a member of a society. "We should murder all Asian people" is not compatible with a society that contains Asian people. And no, it is not fair to expect Asian people to have to constantly defend their humanity to others who have nothing to lose in the argument. Much as it's nice to think about abstractly entertaining every possible idea, when some of those ideas actively push out or dehumanize members, the society is forced to choose between accepting debate on the idea or excluding those members. So yes, if you want to complain about how SV society shuns people for not wanting to experiment on human embryos or whatever, go ahead. But assuming that all ideas should be up for debate is ignoring the fact that some ideas are incompatible with your fellow society members. And you get to choose between debating those ideas or having those people in your society as equals. You do have a choice, but you can't have both.]
Care to bet what the historical trend has been for the percentage of the population that claim the earth is flat? If evidence didn't work it would be flat or random.
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.
I think part of the issue is the tactics. The original post was pointing out that the way that bad ideas are being defeated is through force, not through reason. If the law says "Be happy or else" everyone is "happy". The problem being pointed out is that SV is becoming a place where you must believe the right things or else. The or else part is what makes it McCarthyistic.
Many people continue to be treated worse today. But those who are accustomed to dominance cannot tolerate even a single setback without screaming bloody murder. Their endurance is paltry compared to that of the historically oppressed, and their empathy and perspective even more lacking.
Defend the unjust status quo, squealing at the most minor affronts and drawing false equivalencies. It will last as long as you live, and you'll never give up. Society will just have to leave you behind.
Many of the opinions listed in this article are held by sometimes a majority of the population, so this is not about the rule of the many because if so you could legislate this and resolve it through the courts. As MLK said, you do not drive out darkness with darkness.
Our democracy is fragile and is not the default state of our society, and speech is central to democracy. I defend all sides right to speak and if appropriate advocate for a change of laws.
One of the last times this happened it was McCarthyism, and many communists and socialists had their freedom of speech taken away. However, that time it was done through the judicial system so this time is arguably more dangerous as it is done in an extrajudicial manner.
I think what you are arguing for is a non-inclusive society where democratic discourse is not possible, and where mob-rule is tolerated and rule of law is not expected.
Edit: I would like to point out that MLK was a strong believer in democracy and justice.
It seems that you have chosen to ignore upthread accusations of McCarthyism by the same author. That's not constructive criticism over tactical disagreements, it's concern trolling.
If you are pointing to my comment I was not trolling at all. McCarthyism had some of the same properties when it comes to suppressing free speech, but the current environment is also very different in that it is done outside the court system by a mob with no due process. That is more worrisome to me.
If you disagree I would like to hear an argument for how it is different. How do you think the way opinions are suppressed does not violate basic rights of free speech and due process? How do you think calling for someones firing for having an opinion with no due process is a rule of law?
I am asking you to answer the questions I posed instead of making counteraccusations. If you make a good argument I am happy to listen and change my position.
Denying everything, never admitting to what other observe even if it might have merit, and making counteraccusations instead of answering direct questions that are reasonable does not make a position any more correct. This kind of tactic to avoid shining light on an agenda and discussing it is very dangerous to a democracy, and to be honest it kind of proves my point.
Would you also please stop perpetuating flamewars on Hacker News? This site is supposed to be for good-faith conversation, not smiting enemies. I realize other people don't behave well either, but taking that as license to respond in kind or worse is exactly the wrong way to react here.
Would you please stop perpetuating flamewars on Hacker News? This site is supposed to be for good-faith conversation, not smiting enemies. I realize other people don't behave well either, but taking that as license to respond in kind or worse is the wrong way to react here.
Utilitarianism will let you justify anything if you frame it right, including white supremacy, fascism, etc. This isn't something evidence and reason alone can handle.
Ethically and morally, as a society, we have to choose what behavior is okay and what isn't. What's happening right now is that we're verbalizing the changing of those definitions to include things like "'Grab them by the pussy' and other transparent actions of sexual harassment are not tolerable ways to treat women in 2017," in response to a wide number of people coming forward to complain about it all at once, for possibly the first time in history.
And understandably some conservative people who grew up in the "Mad Men" era (when these kinds of things were acceptable) are unhappy with those changes and inevitably writing articles like this one, thinking that the vast majority of people being upset with them for their now antiquated beliefs and speech is equal to the suppression of that speech. No, we aren't chilling your speech. Society is asking you to change your behavior and mocking you for not being able to. We went through this with women's suffrage, the civil rights movement in the 60s, and now we're going through it again with the #MeToo movement.
I'll defend to the death your right to say something stupid. That is your constitutional right in this country, and we have to stand by that to keep our democracy alive. But you had better believe I will call you stupid to your face for saying it, probably with a sarcastic and mocking tone befitting your stupid statement.
What many are having an issue with is that we see some agendas pushed using techniques from totalitarian regimes.
When two sides have different solutions to a problem or opinions, but one side feel morally justified to seek the firing of the other and have the power to do so we are not talking about an abstract concept of moral theory anymore.
There is a reason why functional societies follow the rule of law instead of the rule of the mob.
>
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.
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).
I could not disagree more. You do not preserve your right to free speech by defending the popular opinions. The way you loose your rights is when someone that hold unpopular opinions gets their rights limited. Are you so sure that all the opinions you hold and will hold can be expected to be rightthink for as long as you live?
If you study history the decline of many great countries have started with a censorship of unpopular opinions and shaming as well as ostracizing of anyone that think wrong:
- Struggle session in Communist China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Silicon Valley is not silencing the voices that claim that the round earth conspiracy is brought to you by the lizardoids that rule the Earth because their spaceships are spraying you with radioactive toxins in the contrails. Silicon Valley is silencing the voices that are saying things that literally billions of people on planet Earth believe, and on the order of half of the country that Silicon Valley happens to be located in believes. In some cases quite a bit more than half, if some surveys are to be believed.
I'm seeing this line a lot on HN today, but I think it's a dangerous rationalization of why it's OK to take away their free speech rights, and absolutely, positively nothing more. There is no other philosophical virtue to this position.
I think it's a reasonable line to say that if Silicon Valley is outright silencing something a billion people believe, and doing it quite frequently, there is quite likely a problem. You are welcome to deplore the fact that a billion people believe it, and will probably find another billion people standing with you on whatever matter you are deploring, because that's how this goes.
"When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible."
No, it's because they're avoiding an obvious trap. You trick someone into naming the list of censurable thoughts, then you immediately grab a big ol' mob of censorious folk anxious to score some political points (and they are readily available and hot to trot) and start censoring them because they said the bad things. It is impossible to name the topics being censored without the conversation immediately becoming exactly the one you are trying to turn it to, about how the censored topics really deserve it, and so it's not really censorship, right?
First commit to not censoring the topics, then perhaps you can get some discussion going. In the meantime, you are being deprived of that discussion, and perhaps should be less confident that you understand the issues than you think you do, because... how would you know? You probably don't actually know what your opposition thinks. What you know is almost certainly (statistically speaking, based on my interactions with the ever-more-doctrinaire and ever-more-insular HN) what your side wants you to think the opposition thinks, which is very, very far from the same thing.
Further, I acknowledge that ender7 may not personally have the power to censor very much. However, Silicon Valley as a whole does, and it is actively using it, and it is not only not ashamed, it has used faulty logic like this to convince itself it is being positively virtuous in the process of statistically removing the opinions it doesn't like from the Internet.
> 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.
In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, saying or doing things that showed that an indivdual was a socialist or Communist, including labor union activism, would have been enough to cost a person their job and get them ostracized from society. Quite a few were even jailed. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)
Had you been a member of the left in that era, would you have have agreed that the loss of your job / jailing was a, in your own words, "necessary thing"? Would you have agreed that leftist positions were, again in your own words, "not really defensible"?
I mean, honestly, I don't get it. Do modern liberals really think McCarthyism was a good idea that just happened to be aimed in the wrong direction?
I think we've got to be cautious in defining what "being silenced" means. Because I see a world in which people are saying all sorts of things out loud. There was a protest with a bunch of people waving Nazi flags in a public park in Virginia a few months ago.
I don't think people are being silenced.
I think community norms are shifting quickly in many parts of the country and, again, it's disorienting for certain people who have held certain views without problem for most of their lives. Suddenly they're being told it's not okay to say something and it feels like they're being silenced. They're not, of course. But I understand that it can feel like it.
[Edit: This is in response to your original comment, which you edited.]
The White Nationalist march on Charlotte is actually an example of voices being silenced. Photos of people there were distributed, their names were found (sometimes incorrectly), and their places of work contacted. Then they were fired.
If people see that people who share the same views are losing their livelihoods, they are more likely to be silent. Only the independently wealthy wouldn't consider losing their job risky.
And just to be clear, I in no way support their views, desires, or actions. But claiming the goal isn't to silence them is disingenuous.
They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced.
Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to associate with you.
It is not just those people being silenced though. It is people who stayed home, maybe their views are not quite as radical as someone who would protest, or maybe they tend to be more politically apathetic (ie most people).
These are also probably the people more amenable to changing their views. It's got be pretty hard to swing someone with a tiki torch marching down the street, but someone who feels sympathetic to their views could maybe be reasoned with if they would talk about it.
When they are watching Fox they are not being silenced, they are being programmed. They start to believe they are being silenced, but their views are just being opposed and offended and that they are (at long last) being told that other people think their positions are discriminatory. And without the visible and palpable sense that their views are not mainstream any longer, what is their incentive to change?
No, that wasn't me. I think you are incorrect, though. Fox was only an example, this story was carried by most national outlets. And I've never met anyone who changes their mind because the majority is against them and is silencing them. It just brews resentments and causes people to dig in.
If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous social change have come about? New thoughts and perspectives always start as minority views. So majority consensus must not be enough to change someone's mind.
Also, this really isn't about winning. We're all losing right now.
Some of those that do not want to associate with the unpopular kid genuinely dislike him, or the way she acts or thinks. But most ostracise the bullied in fear of being bullied themselves. I have not learned much in highschool, but I do remember that.
Except there's a huge difference between being punished by the government for your opinions and being judged by your peers and coworkers for your opinions.
If I were a huge proponent of NAMBLA I'd recognize that being a public advocate of such would negatively effect my social status as well as potentially attract negative attention to any brand I associate myself with. That doesn't mean I'm being silenced or censored.
I'm just hoping that amateurs with agendas, trying to cherry pick studies with outcomes they like, is not seen as science. Because they are ones that seem like anti-vaxxers to me.
You're calling this Stanford piece 'amateurs with agendas'?
> There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys...
And you still seem to be implying that, because there are biological differences in preferences or some task skill at a statistical population level, any one individual can be categorised, based on their gender alone, as having different ability at a different technical and education dependent task.
If that is the case, a cite from a Cochrane study that linked specific brain characteristics to intellectual task performance would have some weight. A pop sci piece does not.
> And you still seem to be implying that, because there are biological differences in preferences or some task skill at a statistical population level, any one individual can be categorised, based on their gender alone, as having different ability at a different technical and education dependent task.
I am not and neither was Damore, who in fact went out of his way to talk about population level differences, including providing bell curve distribution graphics
“Silenced” here means any manner of active suppression
(shaming, ridiculing, verbal abuse, social bullying, even physical violence, etc) of an idea, rather than simply (1) ignoring it on a personal level, or (2) responding to it with argument via evidence and reason.
If an idea we disagree with is rare or harmless, we often ignore it. If an idea we disagree with is more common and worth refuting, we should respond to it with debate. If all parties involved in a debate are reasonable, consensus is possible. In aggregate, humans are capable of being reasonable, thus society progresses over time (amortized).
Sadly, there is often difficulty reaching consensus immediately — especially with deeply entrenched viewpoints. However, given time, history has proven over and over that truth prevails though patient use of rational argument. It is only through presentation of evidence and calm, rational argument that society progresses.
Other, more heavy-handed means of ideological conquest have more often than not made the world a much worse place. In fact, more than just a few million deaths have resulted from what we could call “non-rational ideological conquest” (which inevitably manifests in progressively more violent ways).
Rational argument doesn't scale, bots and memes scale. Blocklists do scale, and it's only because identity platforms (fb, twitter) are also locked down content control platforms that we haven't seen more global blocklists.
I fully expect decentralised social behaviour blocklists to emerge in the near future. Who would want to (employ/socialise with/do business with) a (trumptard/libtard)? Why take the risk of employing someone with racist tendencies, etc.
It might even use a distributed cryptographic ledger.
Rational argument is difficult to scale (certainly more so than memes and propaganda bots), but not impossible. Real social progress takes real work, but it’s worth it.
Your last two paragraphs sound an awful lot like the book 1984. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you check it out.
I think Trumpism and climate denial are good counter-arguments to that. I think we (humans, not any one society) are fundamentally vulnerable to propaganda, and we've opened a Pandora's Box of next level propaganda tools (micro targeting, social distribution, anonymous participants) but have not evolved educational defences yet.
"You can fool some of the people all the time," as said by Unknown -- probably not Lincoln, but one of the things continually misattributed to him, in an earlier style of meme misinformation. It is ironic that people thought that the internet would purge misinformation (by making sources easier to check) but instead it has made it worse, by bypassing expertise, analysis and references altogether.
1984 isn't really about tribal groupings using computerised social credit systems, but I take your point. From the authoritarian POV, China already has nascent systems to score each citizen's thought correctness factor.
It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply adds nothing good to the world. I don't think it should be illegal necessarily, but I'm fine if people are ostracized for holding such views. I certainly don't want to be exposed to that kind of shit.
And there are many situations which require learning and understanding to participate. A software developer would be appalled if they had to continue to have debates at work about software development with someone who had no idea how computers work -- especially if that person was adamant that their views much be heard and listened to. "Why is my opinion that we should write our iOS app in ActiveX being SILENCED?" Again, that dumb opinion shouldn't be made illegal. But maybe that person doesn't need to be invited to developer meetings any more.
I don't see the analogy. In the rule of law you have a code of law, judges, juries and long deliberations. In criminal law the bar of evidence is preponderance of evidence, while in mob rule you need no evidence and you do not have to listen to both sides.
Let's be clear here. We're not talking about where to eat lunch or controversial scientific theories, a la Galileo or Darwin. We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas.
Some have been comfortable espousing bigoted views. Now they are forced to think about what they say and how they say it. As a white man, this has affected my own behavior (for the better IMO): I've been forced to be more thoughtful of others.
The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.
> We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas.
Let's hypothetically say that a sapient alien species, with the full range of emotions and thoughts a human being can have, was discovered that was also demonstrably not as smart as human beings after centuries of scientific study. Would saying "humans are smarter than these aliens" be bigoted?
Flip it around. If different sapient aliens were demonstrated to be more intelligent than human beings by an order of magnitude, would it be bigoted to say "These other aliens are smarter than humans."?
In other words, can facts be bigoted?
> The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.
Must we? If you've studied the paradox of tolerance, you should know that it has no universally agreed upon answer.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but what irks me is how, on the one hand, one can claim to accept evolution, a process that works precisely by variation and natural selection, and at the same time rule out, not the actuality, but the very possibility IN PRINCIPLE that there can ever be statistically significant sexual or ethnic variation. If you are of a secularist, materialist bent, you are absolutely bound to accept that possibility lest you fall into holding incoherent beliefs.
To be clear, I am neither rejecting evolution nor advocating racism or sexism. I am merely pointing out that secularism-materialism binds you to accept the very real possibility of things being true about sex, race, ethnicity, etc, that those holding secularist, materialistic views categorically and in principle reject (at least verbally, if not in action) as a matter of principle even though they are bound BY THE VERY PRINCIPLES THEY CLAIM TO HOLD to accept these things as possibilities, if not present actualities.
This is but one of many absurdities in vogue in circles like the SV circuit and its allies. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, and you can be sure that repeating mantras and going on the offensive only works for so long. You have to reexamine your foundational beliefs. The truth will, sooner or later, exact its revenge and come for its pound of flesh. The tension forces of contradiction will cause the facade to cave no matter how much stucco you use to conceal the growing cracks.
That is one way to phrase the question. Another way to phrase the question is "what are the average IQs of the races in the USA and why are they different?" This question can be used as a starting point to help change things so that those who are below average can be helped.
The above is a question that I would not bring up in my workplace for fear of being fired. That is why there is an article called "Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley."
I think fact that you get fired if you bring up biology at your company's brown bag on diversity (a la Damore), means, just maybe, that you can't actually say some of those things.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Damore made some factual statements (this is OK), but then attempted to draw some non-factual conclusions from those statements that made his continued employment impossible (what if he was part of a promotion or hiring committee for a female employee? his prior statements would be pretty damning)
Read Damore's treatise and replace every mention of gender with one of race, and see how it reads.
I think the fact that this thread is already flagged says a lot. To keep silicon valley competitive we need to be open to diversity and also be inclusive to different ways of thinking, because in this way we are set up to learn and explore many different ideas.
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.
306 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 276 ms ] thread"Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco."
I also feel comfortable speaking about controversial things foreign cultures would not have the appropriate context to judge, out of concern for being rude, culture value differences etc.
I'm losing a lot of respect lately as it turns out more and more people involved with YC seem somehow okay with Peter Thiel and Trump supporters. Even VICE for fucks sake (Gavin McInnes's all white trash fuck boys) etc.
Have a little respect for your country fellow Trump supporters!!! You have a fucking KGB puppet in charge! Actively working against the long term interests of your country who also happens to assault women, writes asinine shit and gets in the bed with the enemy.
that's enough anger seething...im just anxious that the US is veering off course and into a different beast that would allow more nastier beasts to come into power.
Is it because you disagree with the statement or you agree but believe that it would have been flag killed quickly?
If you don’t feel safe talking about it publicly, feel free to email me (you can track it down via my account). I wish I didn’t have to say that last sentence, but this is the USA we live in right now.
1: http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/election_day_20...
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
[0] My mother didn't actually vote for Trump, but this woman got the impression that she had and was appalled that I hadn't done more to stop her.
No surprise that supporting all that will lose you friends.
Perhaps yours is really more of a comment about the homogeneity of the company you keep than on the universality of their beliefs?
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/1...
While virtue-signalling about nomenclature is fun, this actually has a measurably horrible impact on public health.
Let me be more clear: What does this have to do with 'What you can't say in Silicon Valley', or 'animosity towards Trump'?
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 me that we're adopting this quality for our public discourse, and that's a bad way to go. There is no 'discourse' in debate, that's an activity about winners and losers, not about truth seeking or implementing any real policy.
Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and 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.
That doesn't mean those sides are equal. Take anti-vaxxing and young-earth creationism: do they offer any truth or useful insights for policy proposals?
e: Another point: why should I not hold animosity towards hucksters who hamper efforts to slow climate change, or indirectly cause deaths from preventable diseases?
Sure, every issue has at least two sides...but aren't there issues where one side is so wrong that it is reasonable to conclude that those who take that side have something wrong with them?
For example, at the risk of having someone who doesn't understand the nuances of Godwin's law trying to incorrectly apply it here, take the issue of whether or not the Nazi attempt to implement an answer to their perceived problems with Jews was a good solution. If someone says the Nazi solution was a good one, am I supposed to just say "Oh well...two sides to every issue! We'll have to agree to disagree!" and just ignore that they support genocide?
Or how about someone who believes that the Earth is flat? They dismiss evidence such as the curvature you can see from a high altitude plane, photos from space, and everything else that says it is not as fake that a vast conspiracy of government and academia is forcing upon us. Two sides to every issue, right, so I should not infer that the person is an idiot and so hold their opinion on other matters lower than I normally would?
Yes, there may be two sides to every issue, but what side you take does say something about you. On issues of fact, it says something about your ability to understand facts and the reason from them. On more subjective issues which position says something about your morals and ethics.
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 bay) are most vulnerable. The interior looks like less of a problem.
I wouldn't buy property in Mission Bay, though.
After that time, whenever Brendan wanted to fix things in the language, he couldn't, because you can't break the web for people already using things as they are. This happened several times.
Sure, I worked through the bad old days of writing `document.getElementById()` by hand, Scriptaculous vs MooTools, mountainous files of jQuery, Backbone vs Angular, and CoffeeScript when it was cool, but I can't deny that things aren't so bad nowadays.
Maybe I'm just naive.
He lost the confidence of the internationally focused diverse organization he was charged with leading due to that financial support.
...So his political views.
My comment doesn't just pertain to you nor did I really dig into the merits of your situation, but it does serve as a valid test case that even someone with your obvious and deep technical skills requires more than just those skills to be in alignment with what the company needs from a leader.
To this day you can find people angry on both "sides" of the fake-news version of what happened. It constitutes an open wound for Mozilla which people salt and pick at over more recent or ongoing PR mistakes. That's a shame, because the truth is far removed from the cover story. I'll get to it as a memoirist, if ever, only years from now.
Mozilla is a private organization where Brendan Eich served at the pleasure of its body. What if he was pushing to rescind suffrage for women or to re-instate Jim Crow? Pushing for the legalization of child cannibalism by funding legislative efforts in that direction?
Or it crystal clear that legalization of hard drugs is one of those ideas that is so obviously right than any opposition to it should be squelched?
Back in the days, skin colour was a political view. That was a dumb idea. And the effects of that is still felt up to today. These days sexual orientation and climate change are political views.
This isn't ok. And we shouldn't treat it as such. Bigotry and un-science don't deserve a seat as a "reasonable voice" at the table of progress no matter who you are.
Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
Absolutely. Few things to note here:
1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress.
2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table
3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room.
4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.
Also, is HN really the right place to be discussing petty disagreements within the SV bubble? This article doesn't seem worthy.
His conduct after his firing vindicated that decision too. The dullard even had his Twitter handle as "Fired For Truth", as if he'd written some incontrovertible work of brilliance, rather than the actual half-baked mess he spluttered up.
You can take every effort to respect someone else, not allow any of your behavior to be construed as harassment, and still be out the door because someone objects to or is offended by what you’ve said.
Let’s be honest here. What these folks want is the ability to insult and attack people with impunity. That’s not what free speech is. It never was.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the US that there is no exception to free speech for hate speech. If this is not preferred, your argument is with the judicial branch or Congress and a constitutional amendment, not me.
If you don’t allow businesses to fire people, then you’re compelling speech. Think about it. Say you’re a restaurant and you have a waiter that habitually refers to guests with a constant stream of expitives that would make a sailor blush. It gets to the point that it hurts your business. Patrons stop coming in. You can’t recruit. Do you fire him? Of course not! You’d be impugning his free speech and that’s horrible.
So the restaurant closes, and you start another. And guess who shows up for a job? Sailor Blusher. Do you hire him? Of course! You have to because if you didn’t, you’d be infringing in his right to get paid to berate strangers!
This story isn’t an exaggeration. This is the logical outcome.
So, what are your thoughts on compelling speech in this case?
https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...
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.
(I’m sure someone can explain this better, but I’ll give it a shot.)
As a silly example, let’s say 85% of an area believes that carbonation is harmful to health. 10% are indifferent, and 5% believe that it’s good for health.
One carbonation lover happens to be bold enough to drink carbonated beverages in public. Many bystanders walk past thinking, “Wow - that guy is nuts. But, oh well, it’s his life.” One of the carbonation haters walks by and happens to be bold enough to challenge the guy and say, “Drinking carbonated beverages is stupid, man!”
The carbonation lover and hater then get into a visible argument. Naturally, a few more people get involved in the discussion. Ultimately, outnumbered, the carbonation lover goes home feeling misunderstood and defeated.
He meets up with a buddy of his at the carbonation lovers group, and they trade similar stories and conclude that the area is just intolerant of carbonation lovers. The next time, they decide to drink in public more defiantly and with some defensiveness. They start to wear T-shirt’s that say, “Carbonation is not a crime!”
What they missed is that for that one person out of 100 who challenged them in public, 84 walked by and didn’t.
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 support to keep people living there, or to help them move to someplace that floods less.
There is no way that something similar won't happen to people when climate change induced sea level rises starts making some coastal property unlivable.
Also, a good fraction of the population live in areas where there is a good chance that something will destroy their house over the next 30 or 40 years. Besides the aforementioned floods, there are earthquakes, wild fires, and tornadoes.
The only real difference between those and gradual sea level rise destroying your home is that with sea level rise afterwards you have to go live somewhere else instead of rebuilding where the old house was. No one claims that people who live in states that can have earthquakes or tornadoes do not really believe that earthquakes or tornadoes happen.
Is that as a CULTURE we are self-censoring due to the Chilling Effect from learning that the NSA collects unfathomable dossiers on every citizens private browsing behavior.(1)
It is sad and hilarious that SV leaders - who have spawned & continue to lobby for anti-privacy technology in the name of data collection and personal information dealing to sell advertising are crying that they can't be honest with their peers.
If we want people to be more open and honest, to be open to broader views than their own how about start by fixing the fucking group-think algorithms that FB / Twitter / Goog are so fond of?
(1) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/27/nsa-surveil...
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 more extreme views. Sometimes people don't bring these topics up in bad faith, but it's been my experience that they're the minority.
FWIW, I don't live in Silicon Valley or in CA.
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.
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.
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, and half of the population understands that "family values" is really code for "christian values."
> nobody is against "family values" in a superficial sense, and half of the population understands that "family values" is really code for "christian values."
If half the population is christian the other half is probably also not completely oblivious to what that other half understands by family values.
I think the best way to overcome this "dog whistle" problem is to appropriate it and steal it. "Family values" -- "good, we want to have gay, transgender, happy and safe families and we love our family values".
"Diversity of thought is more important?" - "Yes it is, and we find that people of different ages, races, genders, nationalities, educational, social and economic background end up with the best diversity of thoughts and ideas so we go out and actively recruit accordingly". What I see tech companies doing is being very vocal about diversity then turning around and recruiting young white men from a few top universities. Or saying women should be equal but then paying them less. Or covering up harassment and abuse (thinking of Uber here).
So she is Uncle Tom's wife and is secretly dog whistling to the white supremacists.
That's part of the reason people are not speaking what they think -- because they end up getting responses like that, which are completely indistinguishable from a comedy skit or an article from The Onion.
It's like talking to someone and hearing them try to convince you about contrails or lizard people. You can't argue at that point, because you realize it's way beyond that, so you just kind of keep quiet an nod. Especially if that person is your boss or coworker.
> “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation,” the inaugural diversity chief said.
> ”Diversity is the human experience,” she said, according to Quartz. “I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”
This is what Denise Young Smith, 20 year HR veteran at Apple said. She 'resigned' and was replaced after the ensuing outrage.
I want to be clear: it's bad to fire people just for expressing a different opinion. But that's not what my comment was about -- it was about how, as a society, we've learned to detect and avoid conversations that are probably faithless.
I don't shut anybody down. My time and attention are limited resources, and I don't like wasting them in a discussion that the other party is using in bad faith. To that end, I avoid starting questions that (through experience) tend to go down that path.
Like I said in the GP, I don't find the discussion itself objectionable. I've just applied a heuristic to determine who I have the discussion with.
If you want to have a workforce representative of a given community, and the characteristics of that community are evaluated along ethnic or skin color, then diversity thereof is key.
If you want a workforce representative of people's economic status, then you evaluate on economic characteristics of the community.
IF you're looking for creativity then diversity in thought is paramount [however, that does not imply not guarantee diversity in any other human feature.]
The issue can become muddled due to a couple of reasons. Companies while looking to address ethnic diversity imbalance will imply that increasing ethnic diversity will coincidentally result in creative diversity [with the implication that greater creative diversity results in company success]. Their confounding of these things make things muddled.
If diversity of culture were necessary to succeed, then relative monocultures like China and Japan would never succeed.
"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"
"wikimedia has plenty of money"
"Mozilla is institutionally focused on supporting left wing views exclusively"
"all of the rich people who speak out against guns have bodyguards who carry guns. they basically don't want poor people owning guns"
"fwd.us is against Trump's wall but Mark Zuckerberg wanted to buy a city block in Palo Alto to keep the masses out"
Another I'll add from my list: "The social costs and spillover of disruption are not fairly priced today, representing a market failure; it's a problem akin to pollution in pre-regulation 19th century manufacturing."
The election of Trump and enthusiasm to "build a wall" to protect manufacturing jobs reflects a real pain felt by a large number (maybe the majority) of Americans who are scared about their future job prospects and inability to provide for their families; many tech companies today are making their problems worse. These externalities are being foisted on society and these workers, who are not involved in the disrupting technology itself, and the companies have no obligation to pay for this cost.
An assumption that disruption will "work itself out in the long run" isn't acceptable (nor is it necessarily true). I think it's like environmental pollution in the 70's, before we had the EPA to penalize the behavior. It's also accelerating, and could reach a tipping point that would put serious risks on our political system and social fabric.
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.
No, it's simpler still. What is happening is that conservatives feel awkward and nervous being a minority (irony much?), so they look to strawman arguments to make themselves feel better.
Obviously you can have those fights if you want. You just can't find many people to agree with you. This is like walking into a megachurch in Mississippi and complaining that no one wants to listen to your opinions on reproductive health care.
Oh, do I need to state that was sarcasm?
> This is like walking into a megachurch in Mississippi and complaining that no one wants to listen to your opinions on reproductive health care.
How can you not see the irony in this? Your example is a bad outcome. SV doing the reverse is bad. Not there are ideas that are OK and ideas that are bad, contextually, and alienating people is all good and fine, where my badness is OK if it is proportional and opposite to your badness. Intolerance ITSELF is the problem, fullstop, no matter the "rightness" of the idea.
We live in a diverse world, and finding ways to get along is the key. How can we do that when any form of alienation is defended?
What you and the poster say you want is Free Speech in some kind of abstract principled sense. What you actually want is a safe space where people won't argue with you for believing different things.
Thus, strawman.
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 thing.
Giving everyone a voice is good precisely because it facilitates debate, such that good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas sink. Silencing voices opposed to your own views may serve you in the short term, but as a principle it’s incredibly dangerous and almost certainly harmful in the long run.
Edit: P.S. This doesn’t mean that bad ideas shouldn’t float down to a point where their advocation questions ones’ rational credibility, nor does it mean we should be entitled to say anything we want (no matter how extreme) without consequence.
For example, if you blurted out “The earth is flat - it’s all a conspiracy!”, most people would shake their heads in pity and keep walking away. But if someone presents evidence or ideas to a claim so extreme, the degree of our interest must be proportionate to the credibility of the evidence and the logical consistency of the argument — not the social stigma attached to the topic. This is a subtle distinction, but so important.
Social stigma can serve perhaps as a caching mechanism of consensus, but it is a tool we must wield with extreme caution.
This all boils down to the fact one group is trying to add a number of new entries to the list of censurable topics. It's fine to disagree with that, but then you have to state a) what topics you think shouldn't be added to the list and b). why. When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible.
[EDIT: To explain things a little more. Societies must limit some forms of speech because some speech limits who can be a member of a society. "We should murder all Asian people" is not compatible with a society that contains Asian people. And no, it is not fair to expect Asian people to have to constantly defend their humanity to others who have nothing to lose in the argument. Much as it's nice to think about abstractly entertaining every possible idea, when some of those ideas actively push out or dehumanize members, the society is forced to choose between accepting debate on the idea or excluding those members. So yes, if you want to complain about how SV society shuns people for not wanting to experiment on human embryos or whatever, go ahead. But assuming that all ideas should be up for debate is ignoring the fact that some ideas are incompatible with your fellow society members. And you get to choose between debating those ideas or having those people in your society as equals. You do have a choice, but you can't have both.]
Care to bet what the historical trend has been for the percentage of the population that claim the earth is flat? If evidence didn't work it would be flat or random.
Not everyone has to be persuaded. Some will have to be left behind.
I am going to quote the man who has arguably done the most to end oppression in the USA.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - MLKJ
One of the last times this happened it was McCarthyism, and many communists and socialists had their freedom of speech taken away. However, that time it was done through the judicial system so this time is arguably more dangerous as it is done in an extrajudicial manner.
I think what you are arguing for is a non-inclusive society where democratic discourse is not possible, and where mob-rule is tolerated and rule of law is not expected.
Edit: I would like to point out that MLK was a strong believer in democracy and justice.
You crusaders and your "You're either with us or against us" mentality are the worst.
If you disagree I would like to hear an argument for how it is different. How do you think the way opinions are suppressed does not violate basic rights of free speech and due process? How do you think calling for someones firing for having an opinion with no due process is a rule of law?
Why not ask something more civil, like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Denying everything, never admitting to what other observe even if it might have merit, and making counteraccusations instead of answering direct questions that are reasonable does not make a position any more correct. This kind of tactic to avoid shining light on an agenda and discussing it is very dangerous to a democracy, and to be honest it kind of proves my point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
Ethically and morally, as a society, we have to choose what behavior is okay and what isn't. What's happening right now is that we're verbalizing the changing of those definitions to include things like "'Grab them by the pussy' and other transparent actions of sexual harassment are not tolerable ways to treat women in 2017," in response to a wide number of people coming forward to complain about it all at once, for possibly the first time in history.
And understandably some conservative people who grew up in the "Mad Men" era (when these kinds of things were acceptable) are unhappy with those changes and inevitably writing articles like this one, thinking that the vast majority of people being upset with them for their now antiquated beliefs and speech is equal to the suppression of that speech. No, we aren't chilling your speech. Society is asking you to change your behavior and mocking you for not being able to. We went through this with women's suffrage, the civil rights movement in the 60s, and now we're going through it again with the #MeToo movement.
I'll defend to the death your right to say something stupid. That is your constitutional right in this country, and we have to stand by that to keep our democracy alive. But you had better believe I will call you stupid to your face for saying it, probably with a sarcastic and mocking tone befitting your stupid statement.
When two sides have different solutions to a problem or opinions, but one side feel morally justified to seek the firing of the other and have the power to do so we are not talking about an abstract concept of moral theory anymore.
There is a reason why functional societies follow the rule of law instead of the rule of the mob.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
The best antidote for bad ideas is sunshine.
The alternative is totalitarianism.
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.
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).
If you study history the decline of many great countries have started with a censorship of unpopular opinions and shaming as well as ostracizing of anyone that think wrong:
The end destination for this kind of thinking is Orwellian thoughtcrime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime).I'm seeing this line a lot on HN today, but I think it's a dangerous rationalization of why it's OK to take away their free speech rights, and absolutely, positively nothing more. There is no other philosophical virtue to this position.
I think it's a reasonable line to say that if Silicon Valley is outright silencing something a billion people believe, and doing it quite frequently, there is quite likely a problem. You are welcome to deplore the fact that a billion people believe it, and will probably find another billion people standing with you on whatever matter you are deploring, because that's how this goes.
"When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible."
No, it's because they're avoiding an obvious trap. You trick someone into naming the list of censurable thoughts, then you immediately grab a big ol' mob of censorious folk anxious to score some political points (and they are readily available and hot to trot) and start censoring them because they said the bad things. It is impossible to name the topics being censored without the conversation immediately becoming exactly the one you are trying to turn it to, about how the censored topics really deserve it, and so it's not really censorship, right?
First commit to not censoring the topics, then perhaps you can get some discussion going. In the meantime, you are being deprived of that discussion, and perhaps should be less confident that you understand the issues than you think you do, because... how would you know? You probably don't actually know what your opposition thinks. What you know is almost certainly (statistically speaking, based on my interactions with the ever-more-doctrinaire and ever-more-insular HN) what your side wants you to think the opposition thinks, which is very, very far from the same thing.
Further, I acknowledge that ender7 may not personally have the power to censor very much. However, Silicon Valley as a whole does, and it is actively using it, and it is not only not ashamed, it has used faulty logic like this to convince itself it is being positively virtuous in the process of statistically removing the opinions it doesn't like from the Internet.
In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, saying or doing things that showed that an indivdual was a socialist or Communist, including labor union activism, would have been enough to cost a person their job and get them ostracized from society. Quite a few were even jailed. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)
Had you been a member of the left in that era, would you have have agreed that the loss of your job / jailing was a, in your own words, "necessary thing"? Would you have agreed that leftist positions were, again in your own words, "not really defensible"?
I mean, honestly, I don't get it. Do modern liberals really think McCarthyism was a good idea that just happened to be aimed in the wrong direction?
I think we've got to be cautious in defining what "being silenced" means. Because I see a world in which people are saying all sorts of things out loud. There was a protest with a bunch of people waving Nazi flags in a public park in Virginia a few months ago.
I don't think people are being silenced.
I think community norms are shifting quickly in many parts of the country and, again, it's disorienting for certain people who have held certain views without problem for most of their lives. Suddenly they're being told it's not okay to say something and it feels like they're being silenced. They're not, of course. But I understand that it can feel like it.
[Edit: This is in response to your original comment, which you edited.]
If people see that people who share the same views are losing their livelihoods, they are more likely to be silent. Only the independently wealthy wouldn't consider losing their job risky.
And just to be clear, I in no way support their views, desires, or actions. But claiming the goal isn't to silence them is disingenuous.
I don't think those people were silenced.
They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced.
Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to associate with you.
When those people watch Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identif...) and see what is happening to those people for their speech and actions, they are being silenced.
These are also probably the people more amenable to changing their views. It's got be pretty hard to swing someone with a tiki torch marching down the street, but someone who feels sympathetic to their views could maybe be reasoned with if they would talk about it.
If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous social change have come about? New thoughts and perspectives always start as minority views. So majority consensus must not be enough to change someone's mind.
Also, this really isn't about winning. We're all losing right now.
I don't mean angry disagreement and antifa, I mean social disapproval.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And what of those who were incorrectly identified by the vigilantes? Do their fates not matter?
Getting fired is only marginally better.
But glad you support repression when it supports you.
If I were a huge proponent of NAMBLA I'd recognize that being a public advocate of such would negatively effect my social status as well as potentially attract negative attention to any brand I associate myself with. That doesn't mean I'm being silenced or censored.
I think we both know the answer.
Science Denialism is just the new community norm, I guess.
I'm not sure what you're responding to in my comment.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf.
> There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys...
And you still seem to be implying that, because there are biological differences in preferences or some task skill at a statistical population level, any one individual can be categorised, based on their gender alone, as having different ability at a different technical and education dependent task.
If that is the case, a cite from a Cochrane study that linked specific brain characteristics to intellectual task performance would have some weight. A pop sci piece does not.
I am not and neither was Damore, who in fact went out of his way to talk about population level differences, including providing bell curve distribution graphics
If an idea we disagree with is rare or harmless, we often ignore it. If an idea we disagree with is more common and worth refuting, we should respond to it with debate. If all parties involved in a debate are reasonable, consensus is possible. In aggregate, humans are capable of being reasonable, thus society progresses over time (amortized).
Sadly, there is often difficulty reaching consensus immediately — especially with deeply entrenched viewpoints. However, given time, history has proven over and over that truth prevails though patient use of rational argument. It is only through presentation of evidence and calm, rational argument that society progresses.
Other, more heavy-handed means of ideological conquest have more often than not made the world a much worse place. In fact, more than just a few million deaths have resulted from what we could call “non-rational ideological conquest” (which inevitably manifests in progressively more violent ways).
I fully expect decentralised social behaviour blocklists to emerge in the near future. Who would want to (employ/socialise with/do business with) a (trumptard/libtard)? Why take the risk of employing someone with racist tendencies, etc.
It might even use a distributed cryptographic ledger.
Your last two paragraphs sound an awful lot like the book 1984. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you check it out.
"You can fool some of the people all the time," as said by Unknown -- probably not Lincoln, but one of the things continually misattributed to him, in an earlier style of meme misinformation. It is ironic that people thought that the internet would purge misinformation (by making sources easier to check) but instead it has made it worse, by bypassing expertise, analysis and references altogether.
1984 isn't really about tribal groupings using computerised social credit systems, but I take your point. From the authoritarian POV, China already has nascent systems to score each citizen's thought correctness factor.
It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply adds nothing good to the world. I don't think it should be illegal necessarily, but I'm fine if people are ostracized for holding such views. I certainly don't want to be exposed to that kind of shit.
And there are many situations which require learning and understanding to participate. A software developer would be appalled if they had to continue to have debates at work about software development with someone who had no idea how computers work -- especially if that person was adamant that their views much be heard and listened to. "Why is my opinion that we should write our iOS app in ActiveX being SILENCED?" Again, that dumb opinion shouldn't be made illegal. But maybe that person doesn't need to be invited to developer meetings any more.
You get my point.
Lots of subtlety when it comes to free speech.
Not all controversial opinions are the same.
There is a reason why advanced societies are ruled by the rule of law and not the rule of the mob.
Q.E.D.
Some have been comfortable espousing bigoted views. Now they are forced to think about what they say and how they say it. As a white man, this has affected my own behavior (for the better IMO): I've been forced to be more thoughtful of others.
The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.
Let's hypothetically say that a sapient alien species, with the full range of emotions and thoughts a human being can have, was discovered that was also demonstrably not as smart as human beings after centuries of scientific study. Would saying "humans are smarter than these aliens" be bigoted?
Flip it around. If different sapient aliens were demonstrated to be more intelligent than human beings by an order of magnitude, would it be bigoted to say "These other aliens are smarter than humans."?
In other words, can facts be bigoted?
> The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.
Must we? If you've studied the paradox of tolerance, you should know that it has no universally agreed upon answer.
To be clear, I am neither rejecting evolution nor advocating racism or sexism. I am merely pointing out that secularism-materialism binds you to accept the very real possibility of things being true about sex, race, ethnicity, etc, that those holding secularist, materialistic views categorically and in principle reject (at least verbally, if not in action) as a matter of principle even though they are bound BY THE VERY PRINCIPLES THEY CLAIM TO HOLD to accept these things as possibilities, if not present actualities.
This is but one of many absurdities in vogue in circles like the SV circuit and its allies. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, and you can be sure that repeating mantras and going on the offensive only works for so long. You have to reexamine your foundational beliefs. The truth will, sooner or later, exact its revenge and come for its pound of flesh. The tension forces of contradiction will cause the facade to cave no matter how much stucco you use to conceal the growing cracks.
That is one way to phrase the question. Another way to phrase the question is "what are the average IQs of the races in the USA and why are they different?" This question can be used as a starting point to help change things so that those who are below average can be helped.
The above is a question that I would not bring up in my workplace for fear of being fired. That is why there is an article called "Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley."
Read Damore's treatise and replace every mention of gender with one of race, and see how it reads.
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.