4 ms·

I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this: A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has

by ak_yo 9y ago

I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this: A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this conversation is supposed to go -- like are we supposed to entertain everything as if it were serious? If I go up to a physics professor and say "I think physics is completely inferior and wrong" what is she supposed to say?

psyc 9y ago
You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.
- igor47 9y ago
  Ah, we come to the heart of it. If Sam had said, "Twitter is a problem because it enables dangerous groupthink, promotes overreaction, and stifles meaningful discourse" then (a) his argument would have been a lot more clear and (b) I would have been 100% onboard
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    I'm not sure twitter is the cause, more the primary avenue. People can be dangerously groupthink-y and overreacting in person or on social media, and our culture certainly seems to be moving more in the direction of instant reactions and emotional self-satisfaction over engaging in nuanced debates.
  - librvf 9y ago
    Well, is twitter actually the problem, though? Twitter's biases are a problem, but that's a separate issue. Twitter can't be expected to prevent all forms of propaganda from its users, and even if they could the problem is not just twitter specifically, it's all social media. While the parent made a pithy comment using Twitter as an example, in reality instigators rely on an array of platforms to spread the message and whip up the proverbial mob. And more importantly, people with decision-making power have shown a remarkable tendency to submit to the will of these capricious and volatile online mobs.
  - jedharris 9y ago
    Why is Twitter the problem if a company fires an employee. If I can just ignore Twitter (and I do) then Twitter mobs don't directly affect me. But if my management does things because of Twitter mobs (or anything else like that) we have a big problem.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody. And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?
  - librvf 9y ago
    > You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody. Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system. > And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered? If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Victims_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Victims_in_the_Unit...
      - librvf 9y ago
        We're discussing the situation in present-day tech culture, mostly with regards to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area as compared to China.
        Avshalom 9y ago
        The broad history of violent bigotry in the United States does not get magically forgotten by people just because they write code for a living. And that history and that present reality means that many things are not just abstract propositions but are direct threats.
        9y ago
librvf 9y ago
You might agree, but you're both completely wrong. As James Damore proved, the exchange goes like this: A: Statistically speaking, there are some genetic explanations for trends we see between men and women. B: That is a sexist thing to say that women can't do tech, so you are harming women in tech. You need to be fired. A: But... that's not what I said... (A is fired) B: SO COURAGEOUS of the company to fire that employee for those bigoted ideas C: Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas? D: Every time someone says something bigoted, they're like "muh free speech!" Stop saying bigoted things! Note: D never read the original post and has no first-hand knowledge of what A may or may not be guilty of.
olympus 9y ago
But what if A said this: There are obviously genetic differences between races. That's how AncestryDNA can tell where you came from. So if there are obviously genetic differences, why can't I talk about the pros/cons of being black without being hateful? Some differences are going to be objectively better or worse, why I can't we talk about them without going into full blown racism? If we acknowledge the fact that there are physical differences due to genetics, maybe there are mental differences too (that's a real touchy one)? Pro: some localized African phenotypes make for world-class athletes in certain sports- a single tribe in Kenya is vastly over-represented in marathon running. Con: Africans are worse at living in the Arctic Circle compared to Nordic people. Their dark skin isn't suited to producing enough vitamin D with limited skin exposure. Con: Black people with high blood pressure don't respond well to beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. Instead they need to be prescribed diuretics and calcium blockers, but these have worse side effects. It seems like today if we mention that there are actually genetic differences between races it automatically gets shut down because they assume we're going to start making the conversation about hate instead of what we can do to fix some of the cons.
- ak_yo 9y ago
  I think it's completely fair to think that a lot of these thoughts are coming from a good place. But the people who are espousing these perspectives need to understand that there's a lot of really intense history behind ideas like this. When these ideas have surfaced in the past, it usually hasn't really been about "fixing the cons" -- and even when it has, it often has major unanticipated and unintended consequences that cause serious harms. I guess what I mean is that even when folks are talking about these things in good-intentioned ways, they're not appreciating the weightiness of the ideas they're throwing around -- and depending on your priors, it's reasonable to worry about that.
  - ThrowAwayFSp 9y ago
    So, to be clear: your ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed. An easy way to do that is to fire you after we all complain rending our clothes. See: Damore.

by ak_yo 9y ago

psyc 9y ago

You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.

igor47 9y ago
Ah, we come to the heart of it. If Sam had said, "Twitter is a problem because it enables dangerous groupthink, promotes overreaction, and stifles meaningful discourse" then (a) his argument would have been a lot more clear and (b) I would have been 100% onboard
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  I'm not sure twitter is the cause, more the primary avenue. People can be dangerously groupthink-y and overreacting in person or on social media, and our culture certainly seems to be moving more in the direction of instant reactions and emotional self-satisfaction over engaging in nuanced debates.
- librvf 9y ago
  Well, is twitter actually the problem, though? Twitter's biases are a problem, but that's a separate issue. Twitter can't be expected to prevent all forms of propaganda from its users, and even if they could the problem is not just twitter specifically, it's all social media. While the parent made a pithy comment using Twitter as an example, in reality instigators rely on an array of platforms to spread the message and whip up the proverbial mob. And more importantly, people with decision-making power have shown a remarkable tendency to submit to the will of these capricious and volatile online mobs.
- jedharris 9y ago
  Why is Twitter the problem if a company fires an employee. If I can just ignore Twitter (and I do) then Twitter mobs don't directly affect me. But if my management does things because of Twitter mobs (or anything else like that) we have a big problem.
Avshalom 9y ago
You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody. And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?
- librvf 9y ago
  > You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody. Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system. > And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered? If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Victims_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Victims_in_the_Unit...
    - librvf 9y ago
      We're discussing the situation in present-day tech culture, mostly with regards to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area as compared to China.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        The broad history of violent bigotry in the United States does not get magically forgotten by people just because they write code for a living. And that history and that present reality means that many things are not just abstract propositions but are direct threats.
        9y ago

librvf 9y ago

You might agree, but you're both completely wrong. As James Damore proved, the exchange goes like this: A: Statistically speaking, there are some genetic explanations for trends we see between men and women. B: That is a sexist thing to say that women can't do tech, so you are harming women in tech. You need to be fired. A: But... that's not what I said... (A is fired) B: SO COURAGEOUS of the company to fire that employee for those bigoted ideas C: Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas? D: Every time someone says something bigoted, they're like "muh free speech!" Stop saying bigoted things! Note: D never read the original post and has no first-hand knowledge of what A may or may not be guilty of.

olympus 9y ago

But what if A said this: There are obviously genetic differences between races. That's how AncestryDNA can tell where you came from. So if there are obviously genetic differences, why can't I talk about the pros/cons of being black without being hateful? Some differences are going to be objectively better or worse, why I can't we talk about them without going into full blown racism? If we acknowledge the fact that there are physical differences due to genetics, maybe there are mental differences too (that's a real touchy one)? Pro: some localized African phenotypes make for world-class athletes in certain sports- a single tribe in Kenya is vastly over-represented in marathon running. Con: Africans are worse at living in the Arctic Circle compared to Nordic people. Their dark skin isn't suited to producing enough vitamin D with limited skin exposure. Con: Black people with high blood pressure don't respond well to beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. Instead they need to be prescribed diuretics and calcium blockers, but these have worse side effects. It seems like today if we mention that there are actually genetic differences between races it automatically gets shut down because they assume we're going to start making the conversation about hate instead of what we can do to fix some of the cons.

ak_yo 9y ago
I think it's completely fair to think that a lot of these thoughts are coming from a good place. But the people who are espousing these perspectives need to understand that there's a lot of really intense history behind ideas like this. When these ideas have surfaced in the past, it usually hasn't really been about "fixing the cons" -- and even when it has, it often has major unanticipated and unintended consequences that cause serious harms. I guess what I mean is that even when folks are talking about these things in good-intentioned ways, they're not appreciating the weightiness of the ideas they're throwing around -- and depending on your priors, it's reasonable to worry about that.
- ThrowAwayFSp 9y ago
  So, to be clear: your ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed. An easy way to do that is to fire you after we all complain rending our clothes. See: Damore.