2 ms·

I'd say that's a rather charitable interpretation. "Not necessarily good"? Come on, this is the comment we are talking about: > I don't trust this article. The

I'd say that's a rather charitable interpretation. "Not necessarily good"? Come on, this is the comment we are talking about: > I don't trust this article. The phrase "Losing viewpoint diversity" is of course crafted to make it sound like a chilling trend. Pretty clear what they want you to think about it. But if you drill into what that's referring to, whether you think it's a bad thing is entirely up to what you think of how the viewpoints are changing. "Fewer racists than ever" also maps to "less viewpoint diversity" but is totally a good thing.

sixstringtheory 6y ago
> that's a rather charitable interpretation Welcome to HN, this is how we do things here: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. From the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). I’ll also note that anytime I see the phrase “come on” in debate I perceived that the person that said it has lost, knows they lost (usually subconsciously) and are literally begging for leeway.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > I’ll also note that anytime I see the phrase “come on” in debate I perceived that the person that said it has lost, knows they lost (usually subconsciously) and are literally begging for leeway Oh, the irony. After you scold me on the need to assume "the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you immediately proceed to interpret my comment as "literally begging for leeway". I guess my comment was not deserving of "strongest plausible interpretation", or even interpreting it at face value? No, you'll go as far as psychoanalyzing my subconscious where I "know I lost". Wow.
ajkjk 6y ago
um, I was the commenter, and I clearly just picked racism as an example of the sort of viewpoint that you would be glad to see less of, to show that viewpoint diversity is not necessarily good depending on the viewpoint. You are really misreading it to make some weird point that no one is buying.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > um, I was the commenter, and I clearly just picked racism as an example of the sort of viewpoint that you would be glad to see less of to show that viewpoint diversity is not necessarily good depending on the viewpoint. You are really misreading it to make some weird point that no one is buying. Ok. Let's see if I understood your point correctly this time: you are saying that sometimes viewpoint diversity is good, and sometimes viewpoint diversity is bad. For example, viewpoint diversity is bad in the subject of racism, but viewpoint diversity might be good in some other subject. Overall, you expressed a sentiment that you are not worried about "decreasing viewpoint diversity". Would you agree with this characterization?
- Neil44 6y ago
  I apologise if I read more into your initial post than was there. However I think the whole discussion thread 100% proves the point that politics should be kept out of the workplace.

sixstringtheory 6y ago

> that's a rather charitable interpretation Welcome to HN, this is how we do things here: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. From the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). I’ll also note that anytime I see the phrase “come on” in debate I perceived that the person that said it has lost, knows they lost (usually subconsciously) and are literally begging for leeway.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > I’ll also note that anytime I see the phrase “come on” in debate I perceived that the person that said it has lost, knows they lost (usually subconsciously) and are literally begging for leeway Oh, the irony. After you scold me on the need to assume "the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you immediately proceed to interpret my comment as "literally begging for leeway". I guess my comment was not deserving of "strongest plausible interpretation", or even interpreting it at face value? No, you'll go as far as psychoanalyzing my subconscious where I "know I lost". Wow.

ajkjk 6y ago

um, I was the commenter, and I clearly just picked racism as an example of the sort of viewpoint that you would be glad to see less of, to show that viewpoint diversity is not necessarily good depending on the viewpoint. You are really misreading it to make some weird point that no one is buying.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> um, I was the commenter, and I clearly just picked racism as an example of the sort of viewpoint that you would be glad to see less of to show that viewpoint diversity is not necessarily good depending on the viewpoint. You are really misreading it to make some weird point that no one is buying. Ok. Let's see if I understood your point correctly this time: you are saying that sometimes viewpoint diversity is good, and sometimes viewpoint diversity is bad. For example, viewpoint diversity is bad in the subject of racism, but viewpoint diversity might be good in some other subject. Overall, you expressed a sentiment that you are not worried about "decreasing viewpoint diversity". Would you agree with this characterization?
Neil44 6y ago
I apologise if I read more into your initial post than was there. However I think the whole discussion thread 100% proves the point that politics should be kept out of the workplace.