Correct. This is the more usual, content-free version of the point. It's not really clarifying, because it removes any actual advice for actual humans. "We as a society should ..." is only meaningful if it's meant as "you as a person should do X to bring about ..."
-
-
Replying to @wycats @ultrasaurus and
I don't think "people shouldn't eat meat" is "heretical" to the point of being undiscussable in SV. Mostly we're talking about opinions masquerading as ideas that have long ago (and repeatedly since) been debunked.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @ultrasaurus and
These days, when someone brings up Race/IQ bile or the "idea" that maybe the reason some groups are underrepresented in software is biological, it's reasonable for most of us to collectively say "ugh, this again?!" and not engage in it as an "important idea" worth debating.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't think anyone objects to not engaging with those ideas. It's the part where people try to get people fired and blacklisted from future employment for expressing them that leads to worries about freedom of speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think it's reasonable for me, as a hiring manager, to not want to hire someone who believes some of my employees are biologically less suited for their job. Don't you?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sure. But our criteria for deciding what topics are in-bounds for discussion can’t simply be that a consensus has formed around them. There was a day when the consensus view was that women couldn’t be as effective as CEOs as men. I’m glad that’s changed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @startupandrew @wycats and
What views that we currently hold should change over next 50 years? I think we can be confident that some ideas we find offensive today will one day be accepted (and for the better). Most of the offensive ideas wont be, but there’s no way to know the difference before the fact
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sure. And if the "controversial ideas" are not being used as excuses to block efforts to make the group of people in our community less homogenous, then it's probably not one of the topics I'm talking about.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think this definition is a slippery slope. For example, our public transit infrastructure plays a big role in racial segregation in cities. When discussing transit, should it be unacceptable to propose ideas that might exacerbate the problem?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @startupandrew @wycats and
Would it be inappropriate to say “yes, this proposal increases racial and socioeconomic segregation, but the safety and cost benefits outweigh those problems?”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think it would probably be ok if, when you say that, a lot of people got upset and you were inundated with replies. The idea that "sometimes I get attacked when I say this" = "it's impossible to talk about it" is just privilege talking.
-
-
I'm not trying to discuss what should be allowed. Nor is Sam, I think. Certainly I think criticism should be allowed. That's not the point. An overzealous reaction to those ideas will suppress discussion of them, which will ultimately be bad for everyone.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @startupandrew @wycats and
And, yes, it's a privilege to be heard and to have my ideas thoughtfully considered. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.