←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
jstewartmobile ◴[] No.16406941[source]
I hate to have sympathy for the devil here, but I see their point.

Hackernews is living proof. Pre-election, you could voice a contrary opinion here and have a discussion. Post-election, even the faintest wrongthink shibboleth gets silently downvoted into oblivion.

replies(5): >>16407017 #>>16407529 #>>16407769 #>>16407835 #>>16409758 #
door3 ◴[] No.16407769[source]
I was shadowbanned for getting downvoted too much for saying James Damore had terrible sexist opinions and should have been fired.

Hackernews is predominantly right wing & conservative.

replies(3): >>16407805 #>>16407911 #>>16411626 #
alexashka ◴[] No.16407911[source]
Maybe it's the strange notion that having an opinion that doesn't hurt anyone should lead to getting fired that's the problem...

The irony is not obvious so here it is:

You want Damore to be ex-communicated from Google, for having an opinion you disagree with. People of HackerNews have decided to ex-communicate YOU, for having an opinion they disagree with. (Assuming that's what happened on HackerNews, and not that you were voicing your opinion in a manner that's counter-productive)

Do you see how you're crying about the very same behaviour you're all for, when it's somebody else?

The double-irony is that you're allowed to post on HackerNews again, and Damore is not back at google!

replies(1): >>16408038 #
door3 ◴[] No.16408038[source]
My values aren't "everyone should be able to say everything in every space everywhere without any consequence!", and I don't think even the most radical free speech libertarian would believe that. In either hackernews or at Google, if you started arguing for Holocaust denial, you can bet you wouldn't last long, no matter how hard you defend yourself with "free speech". In all spaces, there are rules of acceptable and unacceptable discourse. I am no more pro or anti free speech than anyone else, I just have different ideas of what the boundaries of that speech should be.

What concerns me most is equality of all people, and liberation of all people from systems of oppression. James Damore furthered an oppressive system (patriarchy) by perpetuating sexist ideas that attacked and hurt women at Google. With all the stuff about free speech or whatever, the opinion that he wanted to advocate for was nothing more than old school sexism: women are on average worse engineers because of their biology, so any discrepancies of outcome is a result of their natural inferiority, not broken social and economic structures. Is that really a valuable, constructive opinion that should be inside the marketplace of ideas at Google? What kind of company culture does that lead to? One in which discrepancies and injustices can be rationalized and justified through "innate differences" and where women who experience sexism and discrimination would feel more uncomfortable expressing their concerns.

replies(4): >>16409223 #>>16409349 #>>16411125 #>>16411783 #
alexashka ◴[] No.16409223[source]
The justice warrior echo chamber is strong...

It's hard to reply to justice warrior-talk without being incredibly condescending. Can you slow down for one minute and define what you mean by 'equality of all people'?

We have 2 genders, not 1, might be a good starting point.

Let's follow that up with how you know what all people want out of life, that you want them liberated from systems of whatever? Or you're interested in doing for people, what they don't want done to them? How does that work with liberating them from oppression exactly?

replies(1): >>16409310 #
1. door3 ◴[] No.16409310[source]
Well there’s more than 2 genders but that’s another issue. The point is we live in a male-dominated society where men have controlled a majority of political and economic power since this country’s inception. In terms of gender, here’s a few policy proposals:

-financial compensation for housework/child-rearing -reduced hours for the primary caregiver at the same level of salary after childbirth (usually the woman) -equal pay for women mandated by law (pass the ERA) -much stronger policies against sexual harassment -more women in positions of power -full subsidy for menstruation products & birth control -paid maternity leave for all workers -universal healthcare -comprehensive sex positive and consent focused sex education in public schools

I could go on, but the main point is men & male society control politics, science, the economy, etc, so the whole society is predominantly oriented around men. A lot of shifts are more cultural (like attitudes towards harassment and sexism) which is harder to make into concrete policy proposals.

replies(1): >>16409956 #
2. ◴[] No.16409964[source]
3. door3 ◴[] No.16410336[source]
If you think that neck width hair and eye color are traits which have as much historical social and political significance as gender we aren’t really having the same conversation.

Women should have money and power they shouldn’t have to marry into money and power. That point alone shows me we aren’t really having the same conversation, that your idea of a female power is “marrying a rich dude”