3 ms·

Here are some: - Called racist and sexist if you disapprove of affirmative action in schools or the workplace (which by the way, polls consistently have shown

Here are some: - Called racist and sexist if you disapprove of affirmative action in schools or the workplace (which by the way, polls consistently have shown the majority of Americans disapprove of AA) - Called transphobic if you don't want transgender women competing in sports with biological women, because of the unfair advantage - Called homophobic if you think gay pride parades are not a good idea (even if you're not anti-gay, you just think parades in general are disruptive to cities and streets, and also don't want almost-naked leathered men walking around your neighborhood) - Called sexist if you suggest that rape victims should go to the police as soon as possible after, rather than wait months or years later. Or that perhaps universities shouldn't be acting like courts without due process, and cases should go to the police instead. - And do you remember when Firefox's CEO was forced to resign because he donated to an anti-gay marriage prop (that actually won with >50% of the vote?) I mean, maybe the guy was just for civil unions instead, who knows what his reasoning was. None of these views would make someone actually racist or sexist but they are unacceptable to say publicly in left-leaning places like Silicon Valley.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Parades don't hurt anything - violent parades might be said to be harmful but gay pride parades aren't violent. You'll have to come up with a good reason to justify a claim that gay pride parades hurt anything. There's a complex line separating racists and independent thinkers who have some uncommon view, that difference between "people are mean to me and I can't express my minority opinions safely" and "my horrible beliefs should just be accepted". Saying gay parades are a bad idea is close to claiming that allowing gay people (tolerating their existence) is a bad idea as I see it. There are gay people. They don't hurt anything. There are women programmers, they don't hurt anything and encouraging more women to become programmers should help us make better software that is germane to more situations. Today no one can reasonably claim that there was any good by laws prohibiting black and white people from marrying or having children. Yet until recently (say 1970s) this was a very common view! Probably in my southern state it was a view into the 1990s. Claiming that polls show the majority of people oppose AA isn't adequate to argue either direction.
- throwaway5d097 7y ago
  One can think that parades in general are disruptive but should still be allowed due to the right to free assembly, and you did not address the "almost naked leathered men". Which I don't think is a big deal, but I can sort of understand the whole "think of the children" argument. And the problem is that everyone deviating from the party line is strawmanned into "having horrible views" and thus it's perfectly okay to harass them mercilessly and cause them economic harm just for being stupid or whatever.
- dTal 7y ago
  >There are women programmers, they don't hurt anything and encouraging more women to become programmers should help us make better software that is germane to more situations. That is neither the stated reason for affirmative action, nor supported by any evidence that I am aware of. Code is code. Affirmative action is usually framed as a fairness issue, not a pragmatic one. Be wary of pretending that ideological issues are pragmatic ones to convince people - it tends to backfire when the facts decide not to play ball. As a slightly silly but plausible example, what if it turned out that same-sex software teams consistently wrote better code than mixed sex? You can no longer say "they don't hurt anything". You'd have cornered yourself. Personally I'm of the view that most ideological arguments can in fact be boiled down to pragmatic ones. But people are not usually fully conscious of the pragmatic observations throughout their lives that have fed into their ideologies, and so - while they sense that they hold their views for a good reason - they often get the reason wrong. Better to admit that you're not sure why you believe something than to make stuff up.
tveita 7y ago
So in China you're persecuted for disagreeing with the ruling party and in the US you're shamed for agreeing with it?
ryanlol 7y ago
>don't want almost-naked leathered men walking around your neighborhood If this bothers you, you probably are a homophobe. >Called sexist if you suggest that rape victims should go to the police as soon as possible after, rather than wait months or years later. I don’t think this makes you sexist, but if you truly believe this is worth mentioning you’re a terrible person. Everyone agrees rapes should be reported ASAP, but complaining about this completely disregards the point of why they’re not reported. >I mean, maybe the guy was just for civil unions instead, who knows what his reasoning was. Does that sound likely to you?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > >I mean, maybe the guy was just for civil unions instead, who knows what his reasoning was. > Does that sound likely to you? So you're for running people out of their jobs when they take a political position you don't like, because you know what their likely motives for doing so are? You think that's the moral thing to do? You don't see any problems with, say, false positives? And even if you think your judgement will be accurate, be careful. You're setting the precedent of someone else judging your likely motives, and therefore running you out of your job. This is not a wise way to run a society. It's better not to go there.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mmmrk 7y ago
> (which by the way, polls consistently have shown the majority of Americans disapprove of AA) Popular opinion does not make something right or wrong. I have no opinion on AA, but sometimes, needed measures are unpopular. > Called homophobic if you think gay pride parades are not a good idea [...] and also don't want almost-naked leathered men walking around your neighborhood) This is only non-homophobic if the same non-want is applied to women, e.g. at some types of carnivals. Then you're just a prude ;) > Called sexist if you suggest that rape victims should go to the police as soon as possible after, rather than wait months or years later. I wouldn't call this opinion sexist, just ignorant. Yes, going ASAP is definitively recommended, but if you listen to testimonies of victims (I can recommend the Guilty Feminist podcast, which talks about this topic every now and then), violence of any sort but especially sexual violence can instill deep, long-lasting emotional trouble that people struggle hard to deal with, making them unable to go the authorities. It's as if you told someone with clinical depression to pull themselves together. (Edit, addendum: also think of rape that happens in relationships with a power asymmetry. Reporting the perpetrator immediately might get you into even more trouble) Note the common theme that sexual violence often goes on for a long time or is buried under silence before it comes to light. Think e.g. of the reports about children being abused by church clerics or by teachers in certain boarding schools. This is not an easy topic with a simple "duh, just go to the authorities" solution.
radmuzom 7y ago
Firefox CEO was not forced to resign. Stop lying.
- vokep 7y ago
  My understanding is that he was, what is your claim otherwise?

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

Parades don't hurt anything - violent parades might be said to be harmful but gay pride parades aren't violent. You'll have to come up with a good reason to justify a claim that gay pride parades hurt anything. There's a complex line separating racists and independent thinkers who have some uncommon view, that difference between "people are mean to me and I can't express my minority opinions safely" and "my horrible beliefs should just be accepted". Saying gay parades are a bad idea is close to claiming that allowing gay people (tolerating their existence) is a bad idea as I see it. There are gay people. They don't hurt anything. There are women programmers, they don't hurt anything and encouraging more women to become programmers should help us make better software that is germane to more situations. Today no one can reasonably claim that there was any good by laws prohibiting black and white people from marrying or having children. Yet until recently (say 1970s) this was a very common view! Probably in my southern state it was a view into the 1990s. Claiming that polls show the majority of people oppose AA isn't adequate to argue either direction.

throwaway5d097 7y ago
One can think that parades in general are disruptive but should still be allowed due to the right to free assembly, and you did not address the "almost naked leathered men". Which I don't think is a big deal, but I can sort of understand the whole "think of the children" argument. And the problem is that everyone deviating from the party line is strawmanned into "having horrible views" and thus it's perfectly okay to harass them mercilessly and cause them economic harm just for being stupid or whatever.
dTal 7y ago
>There are women programmers, they don't hurt anything and encouraging more women to become programmers should help us make better software that is germane to more situations. That is neither the stated reason for affirmative action, nor supported by any evidence that I am aware of. Code is code. Affirmative action is usually framed as a fairness issue, not a pragmatic one. Be wary of pretending that ideological issues are pragmatic ones to convince people - it tends to backfire when the facts decide not to play ball. As a slightly silly but plausible example, what if it turned out that same-sex software teams consistently wrote better code than mixed sex? You can no longer say "they don't hurt anything". You'd have cornered yourself. Personally I'm of the view that most ideological arguments can in fact be boiled down to pragmatic ones. But people are not usually fully conscious of the pragmatic observations throughout their lives that have fed into their ideologies, and so - while they sense that they hold their views for a good reason - they often get the reason wrong. Better to admit that you're not sure why you believe something than to make stuff up.

tveita 7y ago

So in China you're persecuted for disagreeing with the ruling party and in the US you're shamed for agreeing with it?

ryanlol 7y ago

>don't want almost-naked leathered men walking around your neighborhood If this bothers you, you probably are a homophobe. >Called sexist if you suggest that rape victims should go to the police as soon as possible after, rather than wait months or years later. I don’t think this makes you sexist, but if you truly believe this is worth mentioning you’re a terrible person. Everyone agrees rapes should be reported ASAP, but complaining about this completely disregards the point of why they’re not reported. >I mean, maybe the guy was just for civil unions instead, who knows what his reasoning was. Does that sound likely to you?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> >I mean, maybe the guy was just for civil unions instead, who knows what his reasoning was. > Does that sound likely to you? So you're for running people out of their jobs when they take a political position you don't like, because you know what their likely motives for doing so are? You think that's the moral thing to do? You don't see any problems with, say, false positives? And even if you think your judgement will be accurate, be careful. You're setting the precedent of someone else judging your likely motives, and therefore running you out of your job. This is not a wise way to run a society. It's better not to go there.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mmmrk 7y ago

> (which by the way, polls consistently have shown the majority of Americans disapprove of AA) Popular opinion does not make something right or wrong. I have no opinion on AA, but sometimes, needed measures are unpopular. > Called homophobic if you think gay pride parades are not a good idea [...] and also don't want almost-naked leathered men walking around your neighborhood) This is only non-homophobic if the same non-want is applied to women, e.g. at some types of carnivals. Then you're just a prude ;) > Called sexist if you suggest that rape victims should go to the police as soon as possible after, rather than wait months or years later. I wouldn't call this opinion sexist, just ignorant. Yes, going ASAP is definitively recommended, but if you listen to testimonies of victims (I can recommend the Guilty Feminist podcast, which talks about this topic every now and then), violence of any sort but especially sexual violence can instill deep, long-lasting emotional trouble that people struggle hard to deal with, making them unable to go the authorities. It's as if you told someone with clinical depression to pull themselves together. (Edit, addendum: also think of rape that happens in relationships with a power asymmetry. Reporting the perpetrator immediately might get you into even more trouble) Note the common theme that sexual violence often goes on for a long time or is buried under silence before it comes to light. Think e.g. of the reports about children being abused by church clerics or by teachers in certain boarding schools. This is not an easy topic with a simple "duh, just go to the authorities" solution.

radmuzom 7y ago

Firefox CEO was not forced to resign. Stop lying.

vokep 7y ago
My understanding is that he was, what is your claim otherwise?