5 ms·

I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of

I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of logic. "the U. S. began... to pull its head out of its ass," is not professional. > there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. >it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's liberation". IOW, "a woman's place is in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant" began to go out the window. Some people don't think it's a bad thing that women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers. I agree that policies at the time were too extreme, but many others and I also believe that perfect gender parity in all careers is also extreme. What is considered "equal" varies depending on the person. > Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive. Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing a behavior that I felt hurt the conversation and if left unchecked, has the potential to damage the culture of this site.

mikeash 9y ago
What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? I don't think full gender parity in all careers is likely to happen, nor necessarily a worthy goal. Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though. > Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity. I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time. edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language. "The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues". IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer. > edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation. The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with. So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important. In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation. I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      You are right. I had an issue with the crass language, made a bunch of assumptions on their opinions, and responded very poorly. Your post helps me see this, thank you.
  - 9y ago
- topmonk 9y ago
  > What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." I assume by that you're saying that shaming people is ok if they "deserve" to be shamed. You can't take the hacker news rule, "You should be civil to each other." and say it should apply it selectively to those who you agree with. It doesn't make hacker news "better" to have only one viewpoint, by shaming all others because they don't match the mob approved groupthink of what right and wrong is.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    No, I'm saying that the offense of using strong language when describing something bad is completely trivial when compared to using nice language to lie about both past and present in service of the counterargument. Bad faith arguments wrapped in nice language are vastly more destructive to the conversation then a little foul language. We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
    - topmonk 9y ago
      How is that a lie, though? How do you know it's a bad faith argument? You know what bad faith means, right? That someone is not representing what they truly believe. Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you. > We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'" We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        How do you know anything? How do I know that you're talking about my comment and not, say, explaining the lifecycle of the sabre-toothed tiger? At some point you have to rely on individual understanding of language. Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
throwawayjava 9y ago
So you think emphasizing rhetorical persuasion over reasoned persuasion is detrimental to productive conversation. But then proceed to make an entire post about rhetorical content even though you completely agree with the post's logical conclusions. And then use that critique of language -- not logic -- as a springboard for a counter-argument that isn't even responsive to the author's original claim (which you say you agree with anyways). That position is untenable. Be consistent, especially if you're advancing an argument in favor of logic! > Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing... No, you missed my point. The tone of your writing comes off as condescending, regardless of your intent. It is the sort of thing a parent says to a child, or a judge to an unruly defendant. I literally cannot think of a way to read "watch you tone" in a way that is not condescending. It is reasonable to tell someone to please phrase something in a more polite manner. It is completely unreasonable to do so in a condescending tone, and many people will down-vote you for doing so. IMO there is nothing wrong with blunt language on an internet forum. You apparently disagree, except when it comes to your own speech. Again, be consistent. > but the tone of your post Not my post.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  I think the point is that if you're right you shouldn't have to play dirty with rhetoric to prove your point.
mfoy_ 9y ago
I'm not sure the statement that "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers" really jives with reality.

mikeash 9y ago

What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? I don't think full gender parity in all careers is likely to happen, nor necessarily a worthy goal. Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though. > Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity. I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time. edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language. "The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues". IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer. > edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation. The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with. So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important. In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation. I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    You are right. I had an issue with the crass language, made a bunch of assumptions on their opinions, and responded very poorly. Your post helps me see this, thank you.
- 9y ago
topmonk 9y ago
> What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." I assume by that you're saying that shaming people is ok if they "deserve" to be shamed. You can't take the hacker news rule, "You should be civil to each other." and say it should apply it selectively to those who you agree with. It doesn't make hacker news "better" to have only one viewpoint, by shaming all others because they don't match the mob approved groupthink of what right and wrong is.
- mikeash 9y ago
  No, I'm saying that the offense of using strong language when describing something bad is completely trivial when compared to using nice language to lie about both past and present in service of the counterargument. Bad faith arguments wrapped in nice language are vastly more destructive to the conversation then a little foul language. We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
  - topmonk 9y ago
    How is that a lie, though? How do you know it's a bad faith argument? You know what bad faith means, right? That someone is not representing what they truly believe. Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you. > We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'" We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      How do you know anything? How do I know that you're talking about my comment and not, say, explaining the lifecycle of the sabre-toothed tiger? At some point you have to rely on individual understanding of language. Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.

throwawayjava 9y ago

So you think emphasizing rhetorical persuasion over reasoned persuasion is detrimental to productive conversation. But then proceed to make an entire post about rhetorical content even though you completely agree with the post's logical conclusions. And then use that critique of language -- not logic -- as a springboard for a counter-argument that isn't even responsive to the author's original claim (which you say you agree with anyways). That position is untenable. Be consistent, especially if you're advancing an argument in favor of logic! > Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing... No, you missed my point. The tone of your writing comes off as condescending, regardless of your intent. It is the sort of thing a parent says to a child, or a judge to an unruly defendant. I literally cannot think of a way to read "watch you tone" in a way that is not condescending. It is reasonable to tell someone to please phrase something in a more polite manner. It is completely unreasonable to do so in a condescending tone, and many people will down-vote you for doing so. IMO there is nothing wrong with blunt language on an internet forum. You apparently disagree, except when it comes to your own speech. Again, be consistent. > but the tone of your post Not my post.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
I think the point is that if you're right you shouldn't have to play dirty with rhetoric to prove your point.

mfoy_ 9y ago

I'm not sure the statement that "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers" really jives with reality.