5 ms·

This incident reminds me of growing up as the son of an oil company's PR man in the Bay Area. We lived in one of the small towns in the North Bay. My father h

by saryant 11y ago

This incident reminds me of growing up as the son of an oil company's PR man in the Bay Area. We lived in one of the small towns in the North Bay. My father handled public and government relations for the oil refinery in that small town. A contingent of the opposition was especially vocal in their distaste for the plant. An orthodontist refused to take me on as a patient due to my father's job. Snide remarks from teachers were normal (but the school district relied on the refinery's charitable contributions—which my father controlled—so they had to play nice). Parents telling their kids they couldn't hang out at our house. There is a certain type of extremist who is unable to separate public and private lives and believes attacks on both are equally valid in advancing their agendas. We were glad to leave the state.

whatucantsay1 11y ago
That sucks. "Horizontal Censorship" is definitely on the rise: http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/ http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-s...
leereeves 11y ago
What kind of extremist attacks a child because of their father's political views?
- saryant 11y ago
  The kind that lives in Benicia, CA. And recruiters wonder why I refuse to consider offers back in California.
  - shalmanese 11y ago
    What kind of person stereotypes an entire state of 40 million people based on their experiences in one small town?
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      The kind that uses logic and reason instead of rhetorical appeals to emotion. The 'personal is the political' is part of the culture in california and is common throughout the state. And if you don't believe me, you should go on a job hunt and tell every interviewer who talks to you that you're a republican. Now that I think about it, I want to do just that and document the results. Should be interesting.
      - saryant 11y ago
        While I don't entirely disagree, I wonder how you would run that sort of experiment. I've been on the interviewing side of the hiring table and if someone had brought up politics—either side—I would probably leave with a sour taste in my mouth. Bringing up a politics in such an unprompted and unprofessional fashion is a big red flag, whether I agree with their stance or not.
        nine_k 11y ago
        You might not bring the political questions at all. You might just casually mention a small detail, like "when I last visited [certain city] for a Republican convention,..." or something even more innocent and passing.
      - serf 11y ago
        I disagree with your idea that other states don't have some sort of pet peeve they will 'dock you points' for. Go to Austin and look for a job while spouting off right-to-life and anti-gay marriage nonsense. Go to Houston/Dallas and espouse the opposite opinion. Go to Washington DC or Virginia and look for a job while being vocally against government involvement in your personal life and the spy state of affairs, or the military industrial complex. Hell, let's take it further than job acquiring or state scope; ask anyone with lightly browned skin how they were treated nationwide after September 11th. 'personal is the political' is a nationally accepted doctrine, sadly. In my travels I haven't witnessed much different from state to state.
        11y ago
- DanBC 11y ago
  Shunning "others" is very common behaviour. Shunning the child of "others" is very common.
  - vikiomega9 11y ago
    I think this falls under socially discriminating while being legally tolerant. [1] I wonder why it's ok to discriminate as such. Should one just accept this behavior as part of a social contract? If someone were to say "I'll put a gun to your head" but does not do so, is it not ok to let them be? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-...
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Somebody who believes in their cause. While I wouldn't take it out on a child, I won't want to associate with somebody who was against gay marriage or try to save somebody who was against women's rights to their own bodies. I feel that anybody who spends time with the people they strongly disagree with, when they don't have to, lack a moral backbone.
  - saryant 11y ago
    How does shunning someone for their political beliefs help advance your own beliefs? Seriously. Refusing to professionally engage with someone due to private political beliefs will do nothing but strengthen the resolve behind that belief. Instead of stepping across the battle lines into your exalted realm of enlightenment, they will circle the wagons and reload the muskets. What if Tolkien had refused to befriend CS Lewis due to Lewis' atheism? Lewis would've remained an atheist all his life. Instead, through their friendship, Tolkien brought Lewis over, leading him to write one of the most influential texts in evangelical Christianity ever published. There's a lesson in there for absolutists.
    - zimpenfish 11y ago
      I have a vague memory of some research recently (last few months) that showed it was nigh-on impossible to persuade most people of a contrary position to one they held. In fact, it helped to strengthen their existing beliefs. But my google-fu/pocket-fu is weak and I can't currently find it.
      - hga 11y ago
        Back then being or becoming Christian didn't mean an end to your career; perhaps some of this current hardness is due to the much nastier consequences of going against the mainstream?
        riverc 11y ago
        Lewis' conversion was not due to a direct effort on Tolkien's part, but he woke up one day an believed (his words.) However, people who overplay the role of discussion in solving problems may miss the fact that a person may be influenced towards an opinion by exposure to certain ideas. What your words cannot do, time may do, with your influence as a driver. It is a well known technique to befriend someone in the hopes of influencing their opinion (you rarely can argue them directly into a differing opinion, as per Swift's dictum.) Much of this wagon-circling is influence control or more caustically, hugboxing. If one never hears of a rational person saying things that are what is presently defined as 'racist', one can not make the association of 'racist' ideas being rational (be influenced by them.) Ergo why most people's reaction to some of these texts is 'didn't he learn not to be an a-hole?' But the fundamental problem is that if some ideas which are considered 'racist' are in fact rational, and considered racist only because people are afraid of them, people who seek knowledge and truth would not want someone to close off this information from them, even if they ultimately decide the case is overstated. Environments such as this work well when all opinions can be stated but none has the power to exclude. This condition is fragile and exists under tension, since many ideologies contradict one another harshly and some are designed to sophistically undermine thought to drive it towards their own ends. It is however important to note that Yarvin's appearance here is not under the condition of him giving political opinions or having the power to exclude. One can only conclude weakness on the part of StrangeLoop's supporters, and if such ideas are even in their suggestion so much stronger than their own, they have already likely lost the battle. In fact, it seems like their followers have tipped the apple cart on this one. Now everyone is wondering what Yarvin could be about that would get him banned?

by saryant 11y ago

whatucantsay1 11y ago

That sucks. "Horizontal Censorship" is definitely on the rise: http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/ http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-s...

leereeves 11y ago

What kind of extremist attacks a child because of their father's political views?

saryant 11y ago
The kind that lives in Benicia, CA. And recruiters wonder why I refuse to consider offers back in California.
- shalmanese 11y ago
  What kind of person stereotypes an entire state of 40 million people based on their experiences in one small town?
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    The kind that uses logic and reason instead of rhetorical appeals to emotion. The 'personal is the political' is part of the culture in california and is common throughout the state. And if you don't believe me, you should go on a job hunt and tell every interviewer who talks to you that you're a republican. Now that I think about it, I want to do just that and document the results. Should be interesting.
    - saryant 11y ago
      While I don't entirely disagree, I wonder how you would run that sort of experiment. I've been on the interviewing side of the hiring table and if someone had brought up politics—either side—I would probably leave with a sour taste in my mouth. Bringing up a politics in such an unprompted and unprofessional fashion is a big red flag, whether I agree with their stance or not.
      - nine_k 11y ago
        You might not bring the political questions at all. You might just casually mention a small detail, like "when I last visited [certain city] for a Republican convention,..." or something even more innocent and passing.
    - serf 11y ago
      I disagree with your idea that other states don't have some sort of pet peeve they will 'dock you points' for. Go to Austin and look for a job while spouting off right-to-life and anti-gay marriage nonsense. Go to Houston/Dallas and espouse the opposite opinion. Go to Washington DC or Virginia and look for a job while being vocally against government involvement in your personal life and the spy state of affairs, or the military industrial complex. Hell, let's take it further than job acquiring or state scope; ask anyone with lightly browned skin how they were treated nationwide after September 11th. 'personal is the political' is a nationally accepted doctrine, sadly. In my travels I haven't witnessed much different from state to state.
      - 11y ago
DanBC 11y ago
Shunning "others" is very common behaviour. Shunning the child of "others" is very common.
- vikiomega9 11y ago
  I think this falls under socially discriminating while being legally tolerant. [1] I wonder why it's ok to discriminate as such. Should one just accept this behavior as part of a social contract? If someone were to say "I'll put a gun to your head" but does not do so, is it not ok to let them be? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-...
tomjen3 11y ago
Somebody who believes in their cause. While I wouldn't take it out on a child, I won't want to associate with somebody who was against gay marriage or try to save somebody who was against women's rights to their own bodies. I feel that anybody who spends time with the people they strongly disagree with, when they don't have to, lack a moral backbone.
- saryant 11y ago
  How does shunning someone for their political beliefs help advance your own beliefs? Seriously. Refusing to professionally engage with someone due to private political beliefs will do nothing but strengthen the resolve behind that belief. Instead of stepping across the battle lines into your exalted realm of enlightenment, they will circle the wagons and reload the muskets. What if Tolkien had refused to befriend CS Lewis due to Lewis' atheism? Lewis would've remained an atheist all his life. Instead, through their friendship, Tolkien brought Lewis over, leading him to write one of the most influential texts in evangelical Christianity ever published. There's a lesson in there for absolutists.
  - zimpenfish 11y ago
    I have a vague memory of some research recently (last few months) that showed it was nigh-on impossible to persuade most people of a contrary position to one they held. In fact, it helped to strengthen their existing beliefs. But my google-fu/pocket-fu is weak and I can't currently find it.
    - hga 11y ago
      Back then being or becoming Christian didn't mean an end to your career; perhaps some of this current hardness is due to the much nastier consequences of going against the mainstream?
      - riverc 11y ago
        Lewis' conversion was not due to a direct effort on Tolkien's part, but he woke up one day an believed (his words.) However, people who overplay the role of discussion in solving problems may miss the fact that a person may be influenced towards an opinion by exposure to certain ideas. What your words cannot do, time may do, with your influence as a driver. It is a well known technique to befriend someone in the hopes of influencing their opinion (you rarely can argue them directly into a differing opinion, as per Swift's dictum.) Much of this wagon-circling is influence control or more caustically, hugboxing. If one never hears of a rational person saying things that are what is presently defined as 'racist', one can not make the association of 'racist' ideas being rational (be influenced by them.) Ergo why most people's reaction to some of these texts is 'didn't he learn not to be an a-hole?' But the fundamental problem is that if some ideas which are considered 'racist' are in fact rational, and considered racist only because people are afraid of them, people who seek knowledge and truth would not want someone to close off this information from them, even if they ultimately decide the case is overstated. Environments such as this work well when all opinions can be stated but none has the power to exclude. This condition is fragile and exists under tension, since many ideologies contradict one another harshly and some are designed to sophistically undermine thought to drive it towards their own ends. It is however important to note that Yarvin's appearance here is not under the condition of him giving political opinions or having the power to exclude. One can only conclude weakness on the part of StrangeLoop's supporters, and if such ideas are even in their suggestion so much stronger than their own, they have already likely lost the battle. In fact, it seems like their followers have tipped the apple cart on this one. Now everyone is wondering what Yarvin could be about that would get him banned?