4 ms·
> What else is the American mind unfairly closed to? Unfairly is precisely the point on which your question turns. If you have interesting points to raise in f
by darawk 9y ago
> What else is the American mind unfairly closed to?
Unfairly is precisely the point on which your question turns. If you have interesting points to raise in favor of Al Qaeda, you should absolutely be allowed to raise them, and you should not be fired for so doing. I don't think your arguments will have much merit, but if they're cogent, i'm happy to hear them.
The whole point of his manifesto, and the reason why your post misses it, is that he wasn't fired because of the truth or falsehood of what he said. His arguments weren't evaluated on their merits, and presumed to be the wanderings of a mind ill-suited to the tasks at Google's hands. Nobody even bothered to directly address the question of whether he was right, because they were too invested in how it made them feel. That is the problem.
We should be open-minded about everything. Including child labor, ending universal suffrage, and the virtues of Al Qaeda. We should be able to reject bad ideas on their merits, each and every time, because we understand what and why we believe. We should embrace disagreement, because it makes concrete our own worldview. The fact that the VP of Diversity of at Google simply dismissed the arguments of a widely circulated (and therefore, likely, widely agreed with) memo speaks volumes. And it may be that he's wrong. It may be that his arguments are completely empty of substance, maybe the studies he cites are pseudoscience. But if a decent number of Googler's agree with him, as appears to be the case, then his arguments should be addressed directly, on even ground, on their merits - not shamed into silence. If he's wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate it.
- tptacek 9y agoI think you should get used to the idea that reasonable people disagree strongly with the notion that they should be open-minded about any idea. There are plenty of things I am not open-minded about: * The suitability of African people for chattel slavery * The historical reality of the Holocaust * The criminality of child sexual exploitation Obviously, having spent more than 15 minutes on the Internet, I'm aware that there is some doofus connected to a keyboard somewhere who is prepared to open a lively and spirited dialog about all three of those issues. But, like a lot of other reasonable people, I'm not open to that dialog, and attempting to engage me in it will have consequences: I will never work with or in any way associate with a Holocaust denier or a child pornography advocate. This can bother you as much as you choose to let it bother you, but the degree to which it bothers you won't have much impact on my thinking. People love linking to Paul Graham's "What You Can't Say" essay in this context. I've never had a conversation of any sort with Paul Graham that led me to believe that he was a crazy Cheetoh-stained Holocaust denier, or an advocate for the rights of the Cheetoh-stained or Holocaust-history-averse. I think "What You Can't Say" is by far his worst essay. And I'm hopeful that tire-fire threads like these do a better job of illustrating why than anything I could write to explain my point further.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoPeople love linking to Paul Graham's "What You Can't Say" essay in this context. [...] I think "What You Can't Say" is by far his worst essay. And I'm hopeful that tire-fire threads like these do a better job of illustrating why than anything I could write to explain my point further. Why do you feel it's his worst essay? People generally regard it as one of his best. Jessica said it's her favorite, for example. It's difficult to infer from this thread why it's his worst. Rather than guess, I thought I'd ask.
- tptacek 9y agoWell, I have basically nothing but respect for Jessica Livingston, but if that's what she believes, she's wrong about that. She had to be wrong about something eventually! I'm pretty sure this isn't what Graham meant to write, but the only thing I ever see people take away from that essay is "the worst ideas are unfairly maligned". Judge the essay for its actual impact on the marketplace ideas. What's the good that's come of it?
- sillysaurus3 9y agoSorry, I was mistaken. I looked up the quote: http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence One of my favorite parts of “What You Can’t Say”: > Darwin himself was careful to tiptoe around the implications of his theory. He wanted to spend his time thinking about biology, not arguing with people who accused him of being an atheist. That's quite a bit different from calling it her favorite. Anyway, I was only curious.
- supremesaboteur 9y ago> But, like a lot of other reasonable people, I'm not open to that dialog One of the reasons why even gruesome speech is considered protected is so that people with such opinion can speak out and let everyone know who they are. If someone speaks in favorable terms about sexually abusing children, you will think twice about sending your children to that person's home. However, if such speech is prohibited, you will never know this person's intention and that would put the children living near that person at risk You personally do not have to debate them, but their speech should still be protected Sunlight is the best disinfectant