4 ms·

Don't be ridiculous. Eich couldn't be CEO if for no other reason than that he didn't have a narrative ready for when people brought up his donation to a contro

by zorpner 10y ago

Don't be ridiculous. Eich couldn't be CEO if for no other reason than that he didn't have a narrative ready for when people brought up his donation to a controversial cause. Seriously basic PR, and he wasn't up for it. No CEO. It's the same reason Yarvin can't run a technical organization -- not because he's not technically competent (he isn't, but that's a different conversation), but because he can't help himself from flaunting his violent racism and undermining whatever it is that he's involved in. If he could manage to turn off his bigotry faucet, maybe he could be trusted to run an actual project. Probably not. Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the continued incompetence of a bigoted few. It's not hard to do good technical work, but apparently it's quite difficult for these particular white men to manage without funding/advocating/practicing bigotry and sexism. That's on them, and every time you feel oppressed by "political correctness" a dozen or more people are feeling like they can participate safely for the first time.

red_blobs 10y ago
"That's on them, and every time you feel oppressed by "political correctness" a dozen or more people are feeling like they can participate safely for the first time." So you oppress hundreds and thousands for their personal beliefs in exchange for a dozen or more people to feel better? This isn't my idea of freedom. What we really need next is political diversity: Companies should be required to hire people with diverse political opinions. It would never happen because it doesn't extend and enhance the left-leaning narratives that are destroying society with emotion, mob-rule, bullying, and lies and completely disregarding statistics and facts. "It's not hard to do good technical work, but apparently it's quite difficult for these particular white men to manage without funding/advocating/practicing bigotry and sexism" Eich isn't sexist nor a bigot. Just because you don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean you hate all gays and/or are bigoted towards them. I find it ironic that you have prejudice against an entire group of people while at the same time making the argument that we need to be less prejudice. I also remember reading Facebook during this time: The amount of bigoted comments and bullying toward anyone religious was astounding..and nobody lost their job over it. It's because it's not really about freedom, it's about taking power and control and oppressing another group of people.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the continued incompetence of a bigoted few. Don't confuse political correctness with tolerance. You might feel its more inclusive, but everyone still has a bias, even if its unconscious. I'll think less of you if you believe in a religion, but I won't treat you differently outwardly for it. EDIT: Also, I'm old school. I might not agree with you, but I will protect your right to free speech to the death, no matter how abhorrent it is (again, I do not have to agree with you to protect your rights). We are judged how we defend other's rights when we're in violent disagreement with them.
- zorpner 10y ago
  I feel like we might be talking past each other -- conscious vs. unconscious bias is a complex issue worth discussing, but is only tangentially related to complaints about political correctness, which are all demands not for free speech, but for consequence-free speech. I am also intensely pro-free speech. As a concrete example, I am in favor of the right of people to discuss their displeasure with someone's (freely!) stated views, and to use that speech to encourage organizations to not give a platform to views they find abhorrent.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I don't think we are. My thesis is simple: everyone is biased, and we all need to tolerate each other. You can have your views, as long as your decisions are transparent when scrutinized by others to ensure your views (which others might consider abhorrent) did not come into play. You don't want to take the pitchforks from one group, and hand them to the other.
    - zorpner 10y ago
      Hrm. The idea that an arbitrary decision could be scrutinized in isolation to determine the amount of bias that went into it is... optimistic at best. Realistically it's willfully naive, and practically it serves to preserve the status quo of bias in the workplace and in society. You talk pretty big ("I will protect your right to free speech to the death"!), but it's quite clear that you wont't actually defend anyone's right to free speech (unless they're discussing their own bigotry, in which case apparently we aren't permitted to freely speak against them). EDIT: A simpler way to put it might be that the decisions you make regarding whose free speech you defend are obviously colored by your own unconscious bias.
ryacko 10y ago
His... violent racism? I do not think you will see Yarvin saying all "Bleks r dumb."
tzs 10y ago
> Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the continued incompetence of a bigoted few. It's not hard to do good technical work, but apparently it's quite difficult for these particular white men to manage without funding/advocating/practicing bigotry and sexism. There's no way you can reasonably tie Eich's views on gay marriage to his being a white man, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why you mentioned his race or gender. Among white men, prop 8. barely won, 51% to 49%. Among blacks, it won 70% to 30% (62% to 37% for black men, 75% to 25% for black women). Latinos were 53% to 47%, with men 2% higher than women. It lost among asians, 49% to 51%. I have not seen a breakdown of asians by gender. Supporting prop 8. was not a "white man" position. (Some other breakdowns of the vote are also quite interesting. In the $30-75k and in $100-150k groups it won, 54% to 46%. In $75-100k it was 50/50. In the below $30k and the above $150k groups it lost, 47% to 52% and 46% to 54%, respectively. It won every age group over 30, and lost every age group under 30. It won about 65% to 35% among Christians, lost 33% to 67% among Jews/other, and lost 10% to 90% among those who say they have no religion. Among Christians it won, 84% to 16% among those who attend Church weekly, and lost 46% to 54% among those who attend occasionally, and lost 17% to 83% among those who never attend Church).

by zorpner 10y ago

red_blobs 10y ago

"That's on them, and every time you feel oppressed by "political correctness" a dozen or more people are feeling like they can participate safely for the first time." So you oppress hundreds and thousands for their personal beliefs in exchange for a dozen or more people to feel better? This isn't my idea of freedom. What we really need next is political diversity: Companies should be required to hire people with diverse political opinions. It would never happen because it doesn't extend and enhance the left-leaning narratives that are destroying society with emotion, mob-rule, bullying, and lies and completely disregarding statistics and facts. "It's not hard to do good technical work, but apparently it's quite difficult for these particular white men to manage without funding/advocating/practicing bigotry and sexism" Eich isn't sexist nor a bigot. Just because you don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean you hate all gays and/or are bigoted towards them. I find it ironic that you have prejudice against an entire group of people while at the same time making the argument that we need to be less prejudice. I also remember reading Facebook during this time: The amount of bigoted comments and bullying toward anyone religious was astounding..and nobody lost their job over it. It's because it's not really about freedom, it's about taking power and control and oppressing another group of people.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the continued incompetence of a bigoted few. Don't confuse political correctness with tolerance. You might feel its more inclusive, but everyone still has a bias, even if its unconscious. I'll think less of you if you believe in a religion, but I won't treat you differently outwardly for it. EDIT: Also, I'm old school. I might not agree with you, but I will protect your right to free speech to the death, no matter how abhorrent it is (again, I do not have to agree with you to protect your rights). We are judged how we defend other's rights when we're in violent disagreement with them.

zorpner 10y ago
I feel like we might be talking past each other -- conscious vs. unconscious bias is a complex issue worth discussing, but is only tangentially related to complaints about political correctness, which are all demands not for free speech, but for consequence-free speech. I am also intensely pro-free speech. As a concrete example, I am in favor of the right of people to discuss their displeasure with someone's (freely!) stated views, and to use that speech to encourage organizations to not give a platform to views they find abhorrent.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I don't think we are. My thesis is simple: everyone is biased, and we all need to tolerate each other. You can have your views, as long as your decisions are transparent when scrutinized by others to ensure your views (which others might consider abhorrent) did not come into play. You don't want to take the pitchforks from one group, and hand them to the other.
  - zorpner 10y ago
    Hrm. The idea that an arbitrary decision could be scrutinized in isolation to determine the amount of bias that went into it is... optimistic at best. Realistically it's willfully naive, and practically it serves to preserve the status quo of bias in the workplace and in society. You talk pretty big ("I will protect your right to free speech to the death"!), but it's quite clear that you wont't actually defend anyone's right to free speech (unless they're discussing their own bigotry, in which case apparently we aren't permitted to freely speak against them). EDIT: A simpler way to put it might be that the decisions you make regarding whose free speech you defend are obviously colored by your own unconscious bias.

ryacko 10y ago

His... violent racism? I do not think you will see Yarvin saying all "Bleks r dumb."

tzs 10y ago

> Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the continued incompetence of a bigoted few. It's not hard to do good technical work, but apparently it's quite difficult for these particular white men to manage without funding/advocating/practicing bigotry and sexism. There's no way you can reasonably tie Eich's views on gay marriage to his being a white man, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why you mentioned his race or gender. Among white men, prop 8. barely won, 51% to 49%. Among blacks, it won 70% to 30% (62% to 37% for black men, 75% to 25% for black women). Latinos were 53% to 47%, with men 2% higher than women. It lost among asians, 49% to 51%. I have not seen a breakdown of asians by gender. Supporting prop 8. was not a "white man" position. (Some other breakdowns of the vote are also quite interesting. In the $30-75k and in $100-150k groups it won, 54% to 46%. In $75-100k it was 50/50. In the below $30k and the above $150k groups it lost, 47% to 52% and 46% to 54%, respectively. It won every age group over 30, and lost every age group under 30. It won about 65% to 35% among Christians, lost 33% to 67% among Jews/other, and lost 10% to 90% among those who say they have no religion. Among Christians it won, 84% to 16% among those who attend Church weekly, and lost 46% to 54% among those who attend occasionally, and lost 17% to 83% among those who never attend Church).