3 ms·

(Yes, quick quick, down-vote the heretic -- we haven't progressed much from Salem, have we?) >Important things like women making less money than men, being mor

by batista 15y ago

(Yes, quick quick, down-vote the heretic -- we haven't progressed much from Salem, have we?) >Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us? Funny how you seem to have the missed the part where I SPECIFICALLY write: "It's not like I said we don't have to worry about men and women not receiving equal pay, or about rape, or freedom of choice, etc, which would be REAL sexist issues to worry about". I.e, what I wrote is that THOSE are important issues, and "sexism AS IN "that's what she said" jokes and in "conference slides with some bikini-clad woman" IS NOT. >Ever considered they don't like it because people like you see no problem with treating them this way? No, because I have counter-examples, of women picking professions where they are treated the same or even worse, in much larger percentages. Consider this: is every profession that women generally avoid a sexist one? Or do women also avoid some professions for other reasons? Also consider this: could there also be some feminine and masculine side? (At least psychologists seem to agree). We know that hormones, for example, have a large influence on our behavior, re violence, introspection, sexual interest, etc, acting as regulators. So could women also be more inclined towards some types of professions as women? Can you get 5 year old girls interest in Star Wars as easily as 5 year old boys? (In general, not outliers). I don't think so --judging from the children I know, including mine, they already have their preferences re: cartoons. So, why wouldn't they also have re: professions? Are those things never considered? If so, why? Because they are a "forbidden thought" since we must consider everyone the same? Well, being equal (a social ideal) is not the same as necessarily being the same. Well, I like empirical thinking, I don't care about "thought crimes". >Even if the problem was as simple as "women don't like IT because they're given Barbies," the solution is not to shrug your shoulders and say "it's society, nothing we can do about it," because we are society. I didn't said that, though. What I said was that "if the problem was as simple as 'women don't like IT because they're given Barbies'" then we shouldn't address non-problems, like "that's what she said jokes".

unalone 15y ago
Your deciding what is and isn't important for women to care about is a perfect example of privilege. When somebody says they care about something, the right response is to take note of why they care, and try not to repeat the mistakes on display here. Responding with arguments about why we shouldn't care about this is furthering the problem.
batista 15y ago
>Your deciding what is and isn't important for women to care about is a perfect example of privilege. What privilege exactly? The privilege of sharing my opinion on HN and getting down-voted for it? I thought "privilege" was a concept related to power, what happened to that notion? Women, like men, also care about BS. Non-issues, stupid issues, moral non-issues, religious hard-lines, the latest celeb gossip, some fad, etc. One can decide for himself what he considers important for other people to care about, like I did, and tell those other people his opinion. Like I did. And apparently, like you did. Free speech, is a bitch. You don't only get people complaining about sexism in "that's what she said jokes". You also get people complaining about meta-sexism, ie, whether the first kind of complaining is important or stupid. >When somebody says they care about something, the right response is to take note of why they care, and try not to repeat the mistakes on display here. Responding with arguments about why we shouldn't care about this is furthering the problem. If there IS a problem in the first place. Because, sometimes the problem is "caring about something", itself. For example, when you are a hypochondriac, the problem is not the diseases, rather the problem is that you consider them a problem in the first place.
- Lockyy 15y ago
  One thing that bothers me about any and all up-vote/down-vote systems is exactly what has happened to Batista. He expresses an opinion that is contrary to what other people are saying and he gets down-voted into oblivion. This just feeds into the creation of a culture bubble and never lets anyone in the communities views get challenged. As a side note, I would like to clarify that my view on the issue is: A) Not relevant to the point I'm bringing up; and B) Not the same as Batista's. However, nor is it the same as anyone else’s in this discussion. (It's worrying that I have to clarify this for fear of being down-voted like him. I should not have to sit here and worry that I will get branded a sexist for not just mindlessly hitting down-vote on him. This is a horrible trend that needs to stop.) I'll be down-voted myself anyway for even daring to defend someone’s right to express their opinion however. You get given a down-vote at a high karma so that you can use it against spammers and not just to use it on people you disagree with. So god damn it learn to argue with people properly instead of just trying to silence them. Edit: Also, down-voting people as you disagree with them verbally is like gagging them whilst you debate them. It doesn't convince anyone, it just angers them and sets them in their ways more.
bct 15y ago
> down-vote the heretic > "forbidden thought" > I don't care about "thought crimes". Bad news: you're not the brave thinker that you seem to think you are (in fact your "forbidden thought" is probably more common than the alternative that we're presenting!). People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong.
- temphn 15y ago
  No, you are disagreeing solely because you have been trained to do so in college. Unlike batista you are not reasoning from first principles (which start with the brute fact of XX and XY), you are instead simply siding with those who have the most power among the elites. There are a lot more feminist Harvard grads than Harvard grads who explicitly endorse Larry Summers' conclusions. Thus if you want to advance your career you mouth the right platitudes and downvote the heretics. But the thing is that men and women are indeed genetically and behaviorally different, and most cultures over most time periods (including the Chinese culture which is going to supplant the modern West) have acknowledged that rather than trying to futilely fight nature.
  - bct 15y ago
    Those are some pretty wild assumptions you've got there.
- batista 15y ago
  >Bad news: you're not the brave thinker that you seem to think you are (in fact your "forbidden thought" is probably more common than the alternative that we're presenting!). The forbidden-ess has nothing to do with the general popularity of the thought. (In other places of the world for example --and I'm not talking about misogynistic backwoods--, nobody gives a flying duck for the "alternative you're presenting"). It's forbidden in the context of a certain US population group, in the context of HN, etc. >People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong. Only when it's a moral issue, those two options are not different at all. You can't just be wrong on a moral issue --we're not talking about measuring things here--, only morally wrong. Anyway, most people "disagree" with me because they have been conditioned to disagree. Those same people would upvote me to the sky if it was the seventies, and probably for the same wrong reasons they downvote now, i.e no independent thinking.

by batista 15y ago

unalone 15y ago

Your deciding what is and isn't important for women to care about is a perfect example of privilege. When somebody says they care about something, the right response is to take note of why they care, and try not to repeat the mistakes on display here. Responding with arguments about why we shouldn't care about this is furthering the problem.

batista 15y ago

>Your deciding what is and isn't important for women to care about is a perfect example of privilege. What privilege exactly? The privilege of sharing my opinion on HN and getting down-voted for it? I thought "privilege" was a concept related to power, what happened to that notion? Women, like men, also care about BS. Non-issues, stupid issues, moral non-issues, religious hard-lines, the latest celeb gossip, some fad, etc. One can decide for himself what he considers important for other people to care about, like I did, and tell those other people his opinion. Like I did. And apparently, like you did. Free speech, is a bitch. You don't only get people complaining about sexism in "that's what she said jokes". You also get people complaining about meta-sexism, ie, whether the first kind of complaining is important or stupid. >When somebody says they care about something, the right response is to take note of why they care, and try not to repeat the mistakes on display here. Responding with arguments about why we shouldn't care about this is furthering the problem. If there IS a problem in the first place. Because, sometimes the problem is "caring about something", itself. For example, when you are a hypochondriac, the problem is not the diseases, rather the problem is that you consider them a problem in the first place.

Lockyy 15y ago
One thing that bothers me about any and all up-vote/down-vote systems is exactly what has happened to Batista. He expresses an opinion that is contrary to what other people are saying and he gets down-voted into oblivion. This just feeds into the creation of a culture bubble and never lets anyone in the communities views get challenged. As a side note, I would like to clarify that my view on the issue is: A) Not relevant to the point I'm bringing up; and B) Not the same as Batista's. However, nor is it the same as anyone else’s in this discussion. (It's worrying that I have to clarify this for fear of being down-voted like him. I should not have to sit here and worry that I will get branded a sexist for not just mindlessly hitting down-vote on him. This is a horrible trend that needs to stop.) I'll be down-voted myself anyway for even daring to defend someone’s right to express their opinion however. You get given a down-vote at a high karma so that you can use it against spammers and not just to use it on people you disagree with. So god damn it learn to argue with people properly instead of just trying to silence them. Edit: Also, down-voting people as you disagree with them verbally is like gagging them whilst you debate them. It doesn't convince anyone, it just angers them and sets them in their ways more.

bct 15y ago

> down-vote the heretic > "forbidden thought" > I don't care about "thought crimes". Bad news: you're not the brave thinker that you seem to think you are (in fact your "forbidden thought" is probably more common than the alternative that we're presenting!). People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong.

temphn 15y ago
No, you are disagreeing solely because you have been trained to do so in college. Unlike batista you are not reasoning from first principles (which start with the brute fact of XX and XY), you are instead simply siding with those who have the most power among the elites. There are a lot more feminist Harvard grads than Harvard grads who explicitly endorse Larry Summers' conclusions. Thus if you want to advance your career you mouth the right platitudes and downvote the heretics. But the thing is that men and women are indeed genetically and behaviorally different, and most cultures over most time periods (including the Chinese culture which is going to supplant the modern West) have acknowledged that rather than trying to futilely fight nature.
- bct 15y ago
  Those are some pretty wild assumptions you've got there.
batista 15y ago
>Bad news: you're not the brave thinker that you seem to think you are (in fact your "forbidden thought" is probably more common than the alternative that we're presenting!). The forbidden-ess has nothing to do with the general popularity of the thought. (In other places of the world for example --and I'm not talking about misogynistic backwoods--, nobody gives a flying duck for the "alternative you're presenting"). It's forbidden in the context of a certain US population group, in the context of HN, etc. >People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong. Only when it's a moral issue, those two options are not different at all. You can't just be wrong on a moral issue --we're not talking about measuring things here--, only morally wrong. Anyway, most people "disagree" with me because they have been conditioned to disagree. Those same people would upvote me to the sky if it was the seventies, and probably for the same wrong reasons they downvote now, i.e no independent thinking.