8 ms·

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those v

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

kuschku 9y ago
It's the natural reaction after getting attacked by right-nationalist /pol/ trolls for years. You can't discuss with the trolls, you can't argue with them, you can only shut them down. Naturally, if someone honestly makes the same argument that the trolls copied, the reaction is also the same.
- blub 9y ago
  The problem with this thinking is that many of us are not extremists and genuinely want to know what the scientific truth is. And if someone prepares a text which is logically sound (but remains to be seen if scientifically sound) supported by references then it's completely a different game. And when journalists and other people criticise that text with ad-hominems, jokes and invectives but ZERO arguments, that's no longer enough. I'm afraid that the critics of this manifesto will have to put in the hard work and prove that it's wrong. The tactic of shouting the author down, as they do with typical trolls won't work in this case. But the really bad news is that it never did work. Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.
  - ythn 9y ago
    > Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently. This same phenomenon happened just this last election. Only one candidate was allowed to be publicly supported. Publicly supporting the other carried the risk of being shamed, labeled (bigot, fascist, etc.), or even being fired from your job. By all metrics Hillary was winning. But the silenced portion of the population didn't change their minds after being shouted down and shamed; they, as you said, "hid [their ideas] and acted silently"
and0 9y ago
Some people may have reacted that way. I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people rolling their eyes the same way they always do as some sort of ignorant knee-jerk reaction. I read the memo entirely. It was half-baked, ideologically, but also creepy. I've heard what it had to say a million times before and it's still stupid.
- blub 9y ago
  You're basically doing it yourself. Trying to dismiss it with adjectives as "half-baked" or "stupid". The point is, it's neither and I think it deserves a proper dismissal instead of ad-hominems and insults. Surely there is someone that can perform a point by point analysis and disprove the memo? I have not seen one comment doing that. Not one. So no, you don't get to say it's stupid and call it a day. Prove it.
  - jtuente 9y ago
    I like this comment, though it seems a bit lacking in completeness - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969178
- tothepixel 9y ago
  TIL science is creepy
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people That's a pretty strong accusation. What is your evidence for that claim? Show me what I wrote that attempts to do that.
  - and0 9y ago
    W.. what? Literally your post. I'd have to quote the whole thing. "many people's first instinct". It wasn't many people's first instinct. Again, I read the article, many others read the article and wrote detailed responses. It's not my job to point these out. Someone making a stupid argument does not obligate anyone to engage or correct them. A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it down". If I submitted an internal memo advocating pedophilia or something everyone would rightfully dismiss me. No one would be obligated to engage with my dumb ass, and you're all acting like that would be some kind of tragedy or moral failing on the part of everyone around me, rather than me for writing a stupid memo in the first place. You should just say "I think women are inferior" rather than trying to dictate how people approach an incident adjacent to your agenda, just like white nationalists should just come out rather than being coy and hiding behind "free speech" issues.
yAnonymous 9y ago
In my experience, most people who act like that lack the intelligence to make valid points in an argument or there are no good arguments that support their point of view. I think a lot of this has to do with parenting. When crying always gets you everything, you don't learn to work hard or have a debate to get what you want. There's a whole generation of full-grown babies.
- fiblye 9y ago
  If the reason that people get enraged is because they lack the intelligence to dispute something, what are google and news agencies doing hiring such people? I'm not sure whether it's lack of intelligence or a desire for self-gain/self-promotion (seeing as how loads of people proudly plastered their pictures and names in the ensuing twitter debates, trying to paint themselves as brave crusaders for whatever movement they want to lead).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - yAnonymous 9y ago
    >desire for self-gain/self-promotion This often involves being deceptive, which would explain both of your points. For many people, status is everything and it doesn't matter how they get there. Selling yourself is often more important than having the actual skills required for a position. And let's face it: Not everyone at Google needs to be a rocket scientist. We've also seen how shallow Google's hiring practices are.* Ticking check boxes is more important than correct answers, which perfectly fits with everything we're currently seeing. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272
- tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
  I thought that way too for a bit, and was generally in favor of Jon Haidts interpretation (blaming helicopter parenting). But I've noticed there are plenty of people well into their 40's and 50's who actively encourage this kind of thing. I don't know what to make of it.
mcv 9y ago
You follow different people than I do. I saw people engage with the arguments. Google's official responses explained how diversity was essential to their company.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > I saw people engage with the arguments. That doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct..." I never said that literally every single person's response was like this. Are you trying to argue that there weren't a lot of people doing what I said?
  - mcv 9y ago
    Well, yes. I didn't see anyone try to suppress those views. Quite the contrary, they were widely shared. And then criticised. He wasn't silenced in any way. His message reached way more people than he probably ever imagined.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      Did you see hate, insults, name calling, claims that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss such topics, or should be punished for doing so? What about comments about how wrong it was to do something to incite a culture war (as if that was the memo author's intention. And presumably such commenters don't consider opinions they agree with to be 'inciting a culture war')? I didn't say anything about literally preventing someone from expressing their views. There were lots of views expressed that equated to saying it was wrong to even try to discuss certain matters. And let's not forget that he was fired, and many people were approving of that. That's creating, and celebrating, an environment where you should be afraid to express unpopular opinions
      - mcv 9y ago
        It's hard to avoid hate and insults these days. It seems to have been normalised by the recent political shift to the far right. However, the main criticism I've seen directed towards the author of the manifesto, is that he contributes to creating a toxic work environment where women feel less welcome, which makes it hard to keep him employed in a company that wants women to feel welcome in engineering. Also that he doesn't understand the need for diversity in modern companies, that he doesn't understand the need for empathy and interpersonal skills in engineering, and that he's wrong about many of his assertions about gender differences (many gender differences are the result of cultural bias, for example). > I didn't say anything about literally preventing someone from expressing their views. You said: > many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them The views weren't suppressed, they were spread, and then criticised. No doubt there are people who want to silence people they disagree with; that is nothing new unfortunately. Whether his firing was justified or not depends primarily on whether this manifesto indeed contributed to a toxic work environment where women feel less welcome. Many people think it did. And if it did, then it's kinda hard to Google to keep him employed. That's really the core issue here: is his manifesto intolerant of women in engineering, and does it contribute to intolerance of women in engineering? There's a vital difference between merely expressing an unpopular opinion, and expressing intolerance towards your coworkers. He's not merely supporting an unpopular sports club or liking unpopular music, he is talking about his coworkers. And that changes everything.
TACIXAT 9y ago
It's amazing how much personal experience affects how we interpret messages. I read the original document and, while I thought it was stupid that he was suggesting roles based on gender or genetics, I did think he brought up important issues on the culture of suppressing view points and having segregated groups, classes, and programs. I know that those are the issues I focused on because of who I am. I also think that having discussions is crucial in understanding other viewpoints. I really think we need to have more discussions and listen to everyone's perspectives, both minority and majority groups. That is how different groups will come to understand each other and work together to solve social problems. There is so much prescriptive advice, toxicity, and dismissal of viewpoints on all sides.

kuschku 9y ago

It's the natural reaction after getting attacked by right-nationalist /pol/ trolls for years. You can't discuss with the trolls, you can't argue with them, you can only shut them down. Naturally, if someone honestly makes the same argument that the trolls copied, the reaction is also the same.

blub 9y ago
The problem with this thinking is that many of us are not extremists and genuinely want to know what the scientific truth is. And if someone prepares a text which is logically sound (but remains to be seen if scientifically sound) supported by references then it's completely a different game. And when journalists and other people criticise that text with ad-hominems, jokes and invectives but ZERO arguments, that's no longer enough. I'm afraid that the critics of this manifesto will have to put in the hard work and prove that it's wrong. The tactic of shouting the author down, as they do with typical trolls won't work in this case. But the really bad news is that it never did work. Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.
- ythn 9y ago
  > Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently. This same phenomenon happened just this last election. Only one candidate was allowed to be publicly supported. Publicly supporting the other carried the risk of being shamed, labeled (bigot, fascist, etc.), or even being fired from your job. By all metrics Hillary was winning. But the silenced portion of the population didn't change their minds after being shouted down and shamed; they, as you said, "hid [their ideas] and acted silently"

and0 9y ago

Some people may have reacted that way. I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people rolling their eyes the same way they always do as some sort of ignorant knee-jerk reaction. I read the memo entirely. It was half-baked, ideologically, but also creepy. I've heard what it had to say a million times before and it's still stupid.

blub 9y ago
You're basically doing it yourself. Trying to dismiss it with adjectives as "half-baked" or "stupid". The point is, it's neither and I think it deserves a proper dismissal instead of ad-hominems and insults. Surely there is someone that can perform a point by point analysis and disprove the memo? I have not seen one comment doing that. Not one. So no, you don't get to say it's stupid and call it a day. Prove it.
- jtuente 9y ago
  I like this comment, though it seems a bit lacking in completeness - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969178
tothepixel 9y ago
TIL science is creepy
jamesrcole 9y ago
> I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people That's a pretty strong accusation. What is your evidence for that claim? Show me what I wrote that attempts to do that.
- and0 9y ago
  W.. what? Literally your post. I'd have to quote the whole thing. "many people's first instinct". It wasn't many people's first instinct. Again, I read the article, many others read the article and wrote detailed responses. It's not my job to point these out. Someone making a stupid argument does not obligate anyone to engage or correct them. A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it down". If I submitted an internal memo advocating pedophilia or something everyone would rightfully dismiss me. No one would be obligated to engage with my dumb ass, and you're all acting like that would be some kind of tragedy or moral failing on the part of everyone around me, rather than me for writing a stupid memo in the first place. You should just say "I think women are inferior" rather than trying to dictate how people approach an incident adjacent to your agenda, just like white nationalists should just come out rather than being coy and hiding behind "free speech" issues.

yAnonymous 9y ago

In my experience, most people who act like that lack the intelligence to make valid points in an argument or there are no good arguments that support their point of view. I think a lot of this has to do with parenting. When crying always gets you everything, you don't learn to work hard or have a debate to get what you want. There's a whole generation of full-grown babies.

fiblye 9y ago
If the reason that people get enraged is because they lack the intelligence to dispute something, what are google and news agencies doing hiring such people? I'm not sure whether it's lack of intelligence or a desire for self-gain/self-promotion (seeing as how loads of people proudly plastered their pictures and names in the ensuing twitter debates, trying to paint themselves as brave crusaders for whatever movement they want to lead).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  >desire for self-gain/self-promotion This often involves being deceptive, which would explain both of your points. For many people, status is everything and it doesn't matter how they get there. Selling yourself is often more important than having the actual skills required for a position. And let's face it: Not everyone at Google needs to be a rocket scientist. We've also seen how shallow Google's hiring practices are.* Ticking check boxes is more important than correct answers, which perfectly fits with everything we're currently seeing. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272
tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
I thought that way too for a bit, and was generally in favor of Jon Haidts interpretation (blaming helicopter parenting). But I've noticed there are plenty of people well into their 40's and 50's who actively encourage this kind of thing. I don't know what to make of it.

mcv 9y ago

You follow different people than I do. I saw people engage with the arguments. Google's official responses explained how diversity was essential to their company.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> I saw people engage with the arguments. That doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct..." I never said that literally every single person's response was like this. Are you trying to argue that there weren't a lot of people doing what I said?
- mcv 9y ago
  Well, yes. I didn't see anyone try to suppress those views. Quite the contrary, they were widely shared. And then criticised. He wasn't silenced in any way. His message reached way more people than he probably ever imagined.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    Did you see hate, insults, name calling, claims that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss such topics, or should be punished for doing so? What about comments about how wrong it was to do something to incite a culture war (as if that was the memo author's intention. And presumably such commenters don't consider opinions they agree with to be 'inciting a culture war')? I didn't say anything about literally preventing someone from expressing their views. There were lots of views expressed that equated to saying it was wrong to even try to discuss certain matters. And let's not forget that he was fired, and many people were approving of that. That's creating, and celebrating, an environment where you should be afraid to express unpopular opinions
    - mcv 9y ago
      It's hard to avoid hate and insults these days. It seems to have been normalised by the recent political shift to the far right. However, the main criticism I've seen directed towards the author of the manifesto, is that he contributes to creating a toxic work environment where women feel less welcome, which makes it hard to keep him employed in a company that wants women to feel welcome in engineering. Also that he doesn't understand the need for diversity in modern companies, that he doesn't understand the need for empathy and interpersonal skills in engineering, and that he's wrong about many of his assertions about gender differences (many gender differences are the result of cultural bias, for example). > I didn't say anything about literally preventing someone from expressing their views. You said: > many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them The views weren't suppressed, they were spread, and then criticised. No doubt there are people who want to silence people they disagree with; that is nothing new unfortunately. Whether his firing was justified or not depends primarily on whether this manifesto indeed contributed to a toxic work environment where women feel less welcome. Many people think it did. And if it did, then it's kinda hard to Google to keep him employed. That's really the core issue here: is his manifesto intolerant of women in engineering, and does it contribute to intolerance of women in engineering? There's a vital difference between merely expressing an unpopular opinion, and expressing intolerance towards your coworkers. He's not merely supporting an unpopular sports club or liking unpopular music, he is talking about his coworkers. And that changes everything.

TACIXAT 9y ago

It's amazing how much personal experience affects how we interpret messages. I read the original document and, while I thought it was stupid that he was suggesting roles based on gender or genetics, I did think he brought up important issues on the culture of suppressing view points and having segregated groups, classes, and programs. I know that those are the issues I focused on because of who I am. I also think that having discussions is crucial in understanding other viewpoints. I really think we need to have more discussions and listen to everyone's perspectives, both minority and majority groups. That is how different groups will come to understand each other and work together to solve social problems. There is so much prescriptive advice, toxicity, and dismissal of viewpoints on all sides.