8 ms·
That's a fair fear to have and these are difficult questions. But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities
by potatoz2 7y ago
That's a fair fear to have and these are difficult questions.
But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?
- Canada 7y agoI would be totally OK with listening to your technical presentation. I'm not concerned with your other opinions. Or rather, I refuse to be forced by others to be concerned with your other opinions. I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot. I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.
- Fellshard 7y agoExactly this. And Robert Martin has made similar sentiments clear in prior discussions with her.
- johnny22 7y agoand how old are you ?
- ianwalter 7y agoSeriously? You could just put aside that insane, clearly evil opinion and listen to them speak for an hour? Give them an applause and move on without the slightest burden on your conscious?
- Fellshard 7y agoIf your conscience is burdened by hearing the words someone says, may I propose you need to work on filtering words? That implies you are digesting and importing everything you hear directly into your worldview, instead of examining what people say critically in case they are lying or being disingenuous.
- ianwalter 7y ago“Hearing the words” is an oversimplification. By attending that talk you are giving this person legitimacy. You are implicitly saying that this person belongs in our society. You are contributing, in a small way, to our society being open to wildly dangerous people. I personally don’t want to live in a society where people who wish death on minorities are accepted. This is not hard!
- Fellshard 7y agoI continue to not buy the 'lending legitimacy' argument at all. Listening to someone's words helps me understand more accurately what they are attempting to convey. It is up to me to use that conveyed perspective correctly. I'd rather hear the words of someone I fiercely disagree with than craft a strawman in my own head to counter, because then I can correctly craft the antidote when speaking to others who /are/ being persuaded by such a view.
- michaelmrose 7y agoMaybe this person fell for a conman and in fact still DOES belong in our society. More than 49% of the country is stupid but 49% isn't literally hitler.
- DuskStar 7y agoWell, to turn things around... You think people haven't just kept their head down, ignored the speaker's politics, and paid attention to the technical aspects of a talk when it's coming from someone on the left?
- ianwalter 7y agoIts not about right vs left. Im talking about the specific example given. A person like that does not belong in our society much less should be given my time.
- Throwawayaerlei 7y agoJust to be very clear, what is you Solution to these irredeemable people who you believe don't "belong in our society"? What can it be other than death, or exile resulting in premature death? Have you thought through the implications of trying to do this to at minimum 1/3 of the population of the US? And what that 1/3 or more are concluding from this opinion being widely expressed in the US right now?
- ianwalter 7y agoNo the solution is not death. Thats is such a lazy conclusion. If you know someone has a really terrible and dangerous opinion, you dont have to attend their tech talk. Just dont support them in any way personally. Its that simple.
- Throwawayaerlei 7y agoBut that's not what you said: "A person like that does not belong in our society much less should be given my time." What you're saying now only covers the last part of your statement, what about the "does not belong in our society" part? And why are you evading the questions about what effects these type of statements have on the 1/3 or more of the US that's targeted by them? You really think that's a free action?
- a1369209993 7y agoSeriously? You'd ignore someone's (we're assuming, for the sake of argument) otherwise insightful and well-reasoned technical presentation because you dislike them personally for unrelated (if justified) reasons? Because that is literally ad hominem[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- ianwalter 7y agoYes, without a doubt. Its not about “disliking them personally”. In that example it’s about not giving legitimacy to someone who doesn’t deserve it. In the grand scheme of things, some technical insight is insignificant compared to the perpetuation of evil and suffering.
- Canada 7y agoI'm not sure how listening to someone's presentation or reading their article about Ruby on Rails conveys legitimacy on their political views. In your view, how does this transfer of legitimacy take place?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zapita 7y agoWould you still be as comfortable listening to a technical presentation by an advocate of violent ethnic cleansing of minorities if you yourself belonged to a targeted ethnic group? Would you still be ok listening to “a quality presentation by Hitler” if you were Jewish and your grandparents died in the Holocaust?
- 4bpp 7y agoNot the parent poster, but probably in a similar boat because I would be ok listening to "a quality presentation by Sarah Mei" even though I am considered a member of a group I have a creeping suspicion they would be quite happy to send to the "showers" if only the political climate allowed them to - and I'm very glad it doesn't! - and already had a number of relations get hounded out of society by their associates. (Yes to the Hitler question too.)
- Canada 7y agoYes to both questions. Hitler would have to be presenting something really outstanding to make it worth my while. Hitler and Pol Pot are extreme examples of mass murderers, of course. I'm resorting to such hyperbole to make a point: I'm not going to deny myself access to helpful information just because I can't stand the person offering it, nor do I believe it is reasonable to ask others to do so. Operation Paperclip is a good example of this principle in practice involving actual Nazis.
- zapita 7y agoDo you think your jewish, black or lgbt peers, for example, would answer the same? Would they also be comfortable with your "resorting to hyperboles to make a point"?
- Canada 7y agoI'm not sure, I'll have ask if they're interested in Mein Fuhrer's Modern client side Javascript tutorial and get back to you.
- HeroOfAges 7y ago
- pnako 7y agoSarah Jeong was actually _hired_ by the New York Times after tweeting the kind of vile language you are mentioning. So clearly it's not a problem for everyone. But I understand it's a whataboutism argument. So my position is that organizations and individuals should, generally, be free to speak, and free to organize as they see fit (including hiring, or not, someone). Because it's the best way to minimize conflict.
- Fellshard 7y agoI would agree with you, /except/ that we should also then hold organizations to their own standards, because if they violate them, it indicates that their proclaimed standards are disingenuous, and are covering for some other reason.