←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
wpietri ◴[] No.16407907[source]
> they feel people there are resistant to different social values and political ideologies

This is just bizarre to to me. I moved here from the Midwest, which I found stifling. There's a far greater variety of social values and political ideologies (not to mention backgrounds and interests) here than pretty much any place I've lived. The main hostility I see is to intolerance, but that's hardly surprising given SF's long, welcoming history and the paradox of tolerance. [1]

If I were to worry about any sort of uniformity, it wouldn't be political, but in startup culture. 20 years of success has created some very well-greased rails into which most innovation has to fit: bright young founders, seed round followed quickly by A and B rounds. That can be fine as far as it goes, but it has become so orthodox that I think we're not a great place for doing anything other than a plausible Next Big Thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

replies(4): >>16408525 #>>16408531 #>>16408989 #>>16410668 #
mlloyd[dead post] ◴[] No.16408989[source]
The argument here is that intolerance wants to have a voice. They feel persecuted because people don't view their intolerant viewpoints as points to be debated but rather ideals to be shunned.

This all stems from the sexist Ex-Google guy who is butthurt that he can't write a sexist manifesto at work and have his co-workers debate him on the science, but rather be fired and ostracizedfor expousing discriminatory views.

Sorry, free speech is protected from government persecution, not a guarantee of a debate or to have your ideas taken seriously or to not be criticized for professing them.

dcow ◴[] No.16409066[source]
The argument here is that people like you label anything you don't agree with as "intolerant" and justify social lynching of the ideas based on your likely angry or frustrated emotional assessment. This didn't start with James, although that's one of the more popular incidents. Disagreeing with operational policies that are based on politically charged ideas that we need to correct for the inequalities in outcomes rather than provide an unbiased and meritocratic foundation of opportunity is not intolerance. It's politics.
replies(3): >>16409332 #>>16409568 #>>16410029 #
cmurf ◴[] No.16410029[source]
Meritocracy is incompetent. It is trust destroying because it's inherently corrupt. The privileged, the elite, control the metric by which merit is defined and judged. They create a system of self-preservation that excludes others who would dilute their control. There is no such thing as privilege, elitism, without exclusion and inferiority. Meritocracy always leads to the very thing it purports to try and avoid: incompetency. And that is why it is incompetent.
replies(2): >>16410473 #>>16411065 #
1. dcow ◴[] No.16410473[source]
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think we need a pretty big overhaul of the way we govern ourselves if we're going to escape it. And the only civil way I can think to do that is to rewrite our constitutions and laws using the guidelines that have been laid out describing how something of that nature is to be done. I don't think it's paralegal corporate enforcement of popular ideologies.

I'm willing to entertain a social structure that protects human agency in a world where our traditional means of measuring human value are quickly becoming obsolete, but I think we need a lot more agreement that's the direction we need to head...