3 ms·
Why do comments here suggesting that there are compelling arguments concluding that adjusted wages are nearly identical get flagged and down-voted? There is cer
by GreenToad5 8y ago
Why do comments here suggesting that there are compelling arguments concluding that adjusted wages are nearly identical get flagged and down-voted? There is certainly a debate to be had, silencing the other side suggests weakness of one's own position. I have never seen a good rebuttal against the adjusted wages are very nearly equal position. Things always get shut down, shouted down or otherwise silenced in some way. I would love to see direct claim-rebuttal positions taken with opposing reasoning and data.
- dstrohmaier 8y agoAs far as I can see, the comments did not (just) assert that adjusted wages were nearly identical. They asserted: 1) That this is not a serious issue and 0 economists study it. 2) That at no point in history was the adjusted wage different between men and women. (This was asserted and not argued for.) Comments which just asserted that adjusted wages might be nearly identical can still be seen. I agree that this might be debated. The other two opinions appear more extrem and much less plausible, as far as I am concerned.
- GreenToad5 8y agoI still feel that silencing someone is unhelpful. Why not let their claim stand? if outrageous - let it be handily refuted with logic and data and them made to look foolish. This is far more effective then silencing someone who then becomes a martyr. I also find it interesting that people on the far opposing side, those who come in with raw pay gap numbers whilst shouting "discrimination", they seem to always get a pass? Pay inequality has been well known since WW1, but all except a tiny portion of actual discrimination has been repeatedly dis-proven since the 1980s. Still huge numbers of people still parade the societal discrimination mantra proudly. People and parties run elections on it. Classes in prominent universities are taught preaching it (based on a few personal accounts, court cases and raw un-ajusted statistics). It is almost a religions justice objective for many to fix the unprovable wrongs of a system. Those are the people I often see shouting down the logical thinkers and data analysts.
- nkkollaw 8y agoThe best part is how _you_ are being silenced as well. I guess HN is one-sided. Certain opinions are now allowed.
- black-tea 8y agoI have theories about why this is, but I dare not utter them here.
- dang 8y agoWe've already asked you not to keep posting flamebait so we don't have to ban you again. Here's a repeat request: please stop posting flamebait so we don't have to ban you again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- black-tea 8y agoHow is this flamebait? People have a right to know the limits of their bubble.
- dang 8y agoYou've been posting unsubstantive, provocative comments on divisive topics. That's flamebait. Please stop.
- black-tea 8y agoWait, so you're simply declaring that my comments aren't true despite the fact I'm merely arguing the null hypothesis due to insufficient evidence of any alternative? Why is the burden of proof on me? Because you say so?
- dang 8y agoComments being true doesn't mean they follow the site guidelines. Indeed, being true can make them worse. More about this, if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20truth%20worse https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10368209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10368209 Can you please just keep snark and flamebait off this site? If you really don't understand what flamebait is, start with this: don't post provocations on divisive topics. More explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348774.