5 ms·

What happens if these ideas are actually correct? Is it your desire for us to never learn certain truths? It's interesting that you openly acknowledge this, as

What happens if these ideas are actually correct? Is it your desire for us to never learn certain truths? It's interesting that you openly acknowledge this, as well as what I now realize was support for shaming people who ask naughty questions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857). Most folks refuse to openly admit to this sort of anti-intellectualism, I'm glad to see it out in the open.

pen2l 12y ago
yummyfajitas, I just wanted to chime in and say that even though historically I've disagreed with you on most issues, I have actually as of late begun to appreciate your vehement defense of your viewpoints (which more often than not go against the HN herd mentality). You make exchanges on HN fun and mentally interesting. Please keep doing what you're doing.
- aaren 12y ago
  Personally I find his exchanges tedious and draining, but to each their own.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Thanks for your (public) support. Most people write such things to me privately, since they don't want the downvotes.
rmxt 12y ago
It's nice to know that there will always be someone around to ask the question, "But what if [insert superficially homogeneous ethnic/religious/race/gender/etc. group here] actually are inferior?", because that's typically what "naughty questions" boil down to. Dumb ideas backed by questionable science.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  That's hardly the extent of them. Others relevant to this conversation: "By what moral principle do we condemn the actions of the VC in this story?" "Do we find the story told by the OP to be plausible and a fair description of what happened?" It's easier to call something a "dumb idea" and attack those discussing it than it is to actually refute it. Particularly when, as is the case here, there probably isn't much of a moral principle beyond "it makes me SOOO ANGRY".
  - rmxt 12y ago
    It's a bit of a sleight of hand to conflate "other relevant" questions with the one that tptacek posed above re: Jewish people and banking (which is the one that you replied to). I agree that the relevant questions you add are ones worth exploring in this scenario; however, they shouldn't come at the expense of ignoring the experiences of she who actually experienced it. The author of the article stated that she felt uneasy about how business was going down, and that she amended her plans so as to better reflect her sensibilities. What is implausible about that? Seek the answers to your questions all you want, but overlooking the answers to them in the submitted article is willful obstinacy. Going back to the issue at hand, your so-called easy way out is exactly what tomp was doing upthread. To paraphrase both you and him, "It's easier to put forth reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.) and attack those discussing it that it is to actually refute it [the ongoing marginalization of the experiences of women in tech]." Underhandedly calling into question the veracity of the author's retelling overlooks the larger gender issues in the work world and sidesteps the issue at hand. It's much easier to throw out the idea that she has a mental issue, than to realize that many on-going social norms make a swath of the tech population feel unwelcome. EDIT: The moral principle that you seek is between the lines of her writing.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      I don't have to agree with tomp's specific claims to disagree with tptacek's anti-intellectualism and demands for blind faith in his world view. They can both be wrong.

pen2l 12y ago

yummyfajitas, I just wanted to chime in and say that even though historically I've disagreed with you on most issues, I have actually as of late begun to appreciate your vehement defense of your viewpoints (which more often than not go against the HN herd mentality). You make exchanges on HN fun and mentally interesting. Please keep doing what you're doing.

aaren 12y ago
Personally I find his exchanges tedious and draining, but to each their own.
yummyfajitas 12y ago
Thanks for your (public) support. Most people write such things to me privately, since they don't want the downvotes.

rmxt 12y ago

It's nice to know that there will always be someone around to ask the question, "But what if [insert superficially homogeneous ethnic/religious/race/gender/etc. group here] actually are inferior?", because that's typically what "naughty questions" boil down to. Dumb ideas backed by questionable science.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
That's hardly the extent of them. Others relevant to this conversation: "By what moral principle do we condemn the actions of the VC in this story?" "Do we find the story told by the OP to be plausible and a fair description of what happened?" It's easier to call something a "dumb idea" and attack those discussing it than it is to actually refute it. Particularly when, as is the case here, there probably isn't much of a moral principle beyond "it makes me SOOO ANGRY".
- rmxt 12y ago
  It's a bit of a sleight of hand to conflate "other relevant" questions with the one that tptacek posed above re: Jewish people and banking (which is the one that you replied to). I agree that the relevant questions you add are ones worth exploring in this scenario; however, they shouldn't come at the expense of ignoring the experiences of she who actually experienced it. The author of the article stated that she felt uneasy about how business was going down, and that she amended her plans so as to better reflect her sensibilities. What is implausible about that? Seek the answers to your questions all you want, but overlooking the answers to them in the submitted article is willful obstinacy. Going back to the issue at hand, your so-called easy way out is exactly what tomp was doing upthread. To paraphrase both you and him, "It's easier to put forth reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.) and attack those discussing it that it is to actually refute it [the ongoing marginalization of the experiences of women in tech]." Underhandedly calling into question the veracity of the author's retelling overlooks the larger gender issues in the work world and sidesteps the issue at hand. It's much easier to throw out the idea that she has a mental issue, than to realize that many on-going social norms make a swath of the tech population feel unwelcome. EDIT: The moral principle that you seek is between the lines of her writing.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    I don't have to agree with tomp's specific claims to disagree with tptacek's anti-intellectualism and demands for blind faith in his world view. They can both be wrong.