5 ms·

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.

by 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.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you really do think my refusal to entertain the idea of a worldwide Jewish banking conspiracy is alarmingly anti-intellectual.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        I do find a desire for 100% agreement and 100% certainty on any topic anti-intellectual. Your first example is more troubling than the second, given that this assumption forms the basis of many logical chains [1]. Throw in things like "there's no way to interrogate her account without sounding like a creep", an unwillingness to define your terms, and generally calling anyone who disagrees with you a "nerd" (3x in this thread!), and yep - I stand by anti-intellectual. [1] E.g., no racial group can be better at something than others, therefore any statistical disparity must be caused b pro-Asian discrimination.
        tptacek 12y ago
        You're too smart not to know how fallacious this is. I think you're full of it. I wouldn't particularly enjoy or appreciate a diligent effort to argue that women were inferior to men, but I would respond to its existence on some random page on the Internet by simply not reading it. At issue in this thread is an attempt to litigate issues like that in response to a complaint about sexual harassment. It's not anti-intellectual to point out that there's a time and place for different discussions, and to point out the subtext that animates your decision to try to have that discussion here. You and 'tomp intrusively introduce this fake debate into threads like this, and I think you do it on purpose (albeit for different reasons). If you want to act like a creep and demand that people consider that the author of this story might be irrational, unreasonable, or dishonest, you can do that. Just don't whine about it when you're called out for doing it.

by rmxt 12y ago

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.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you really do think my refusal to entertain the idea of a worldwide Jewish banking conspiracy is alarmingly anti-intellectual.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      I do find a desire for 100% agreement and 100% certainty on any topic anti-intellectual. Your first example is more troubling than the second, given that this assumption forms the basis of many logical chains [1]. Throw in things like "there's no way to interrogate her account without sounding like a creep", an unwillingness to define your terms, and generally calling anyone who disagrees with you a "nerd" (3x in this thread!), and yep - I stand by anti-intellectual. [1] E.g., no racial group can be better at something than others, therefore any statistical disparity must be caused b pro-Asian discrimination.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        You're too smart not to know how fallacious this is. I think you're full of it. I wouldn't particularly enjoy or appreciate a diligent effort to argue that women were inferior to men, but I would respond to its existence on some random page on the Internet by simply not reading it. At issue in this thread is an attempt to litigate issues like that in response to a complaint about sexual harassment. It's not anti-intellectual to point out that there's a time and place for different discussions, and to point out the subtext that animates your decision to try to have that discussion here. You and 'tomp intrusively introduce this fake debate into threads like this, and I think you do it on purpose (albeit for different reasons). If you want to act like a creep and demand that people consider that the author of this story might be irrational, unreasonable, or dishonest, you can do that. Just don't whine about it when you're called out for doing it.