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.
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
So you're saying that if a SV company proposes a solution to public transit that it admits will make segregation worse, the people affected should tone down their reactions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is an imaginary example, but i'd say the people affected should be willing to assume good intent and engage in a thoughtful dialog, and to not personally attack the people making the proposal, even if the proposal is bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @startupandrew @wycats and
Relevant recent example: A ton of people accused Ajit Pai of some pretty nasty stuff, with, as far as I could tell, no grounds for doing so other than them not liking his proposal. This included threatening the safety of his children.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
People should not threaten the safety of somebody's children. But nobody is getting run out of town on a rail because they penned an article questioning whether we need Net Neutrality. It's an unpopular position, sure, but not a career-ending one.
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.