<story><title>On managing outrage in Silicon Valley</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/06/on-managing-outrage-in-silicon-valley/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>EddieRingle</author><text>One of my first exposures to this &amp;quot;manifesto&amp;quot; was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with &amp;quot;Google has a Nazi problem.&amp;quot; The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and&amp;#x2F;or refused to actually argue the paper&amp;#x27;s points because they saw them as so ridiculous or &amp;quot;obviously&amp;quot; wrong.&lt;p&gt;I read the paper. I don&amp;#x27;t see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism, or whatever you want to call it.&lt;p&gt;I am against discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination.&lt;p&gt;If there were factual inaccuracies in what the author wrote, why not discuss them? Why not use high-quality sources to validate your argument? I wish it was the opposite, but I don&amp;#x27;t have the time to research the psychological&amp;#x2F;sociological perspectives on these issues. Human civilization has grown thanks to being able to specialize. I specialize and (hopefully) make contributions in one field, but I depend on others that have specialized elsewhere to provide knowledge and resources I can depend on.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>blablabla123</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I&amp;#x27;m sure you don&amp;#x27;t expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I&amp;#x27;m convinced it suffices to just argue why summary is wrong or rather the opposite is true.&lt;p&gt;As a matter of fact, other people have done this work for us, so instead of arguing it suffices to do a literature research. (I&amp;#x27;m sure you know how to google feminism and that you might have an hour or two time to watch Youtube) But I&amp;#x27;m happy to bring my own crude arguments:&lt;p&gt;- people, both male and female, oftentimes don&amp;#x27;t do things because they think they are not able to do them&lt;p&gt;- teachers have a bias towards encouraging certain stereotypes&lt;p&gt;- the whole environment pushes certain behaviours and interests on people&lt;p&gt;Speaking for myself (being male) my Physics teacher said nothing when I told him in class that I&amp;#x27;m going to study Physics. He was encouraging the other people who planned to study that or an Engineering subject, not me. Even my father discouraged me from studying it because he thought my grades where not good enough and that I wouldn&amp;#x27;t be that kind of person. Still I managed to study very quickly and successfully. During my studies I also learned, that my thinking is different than other peoples&amp;#x27;. I think more in pictures, whereas my peers in Theoretical Particle Physics rather thought in texts.&lt;p&gt;At work I often get overtalked and still deliver over-average results because I emphasise being polite, use proper argument and I look 10 years younger than I am. This really sucks and this proves to me that if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don&amp;#x27;t act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices.</text></comment>
<story><title>On managing outrage in Silicon Valley</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/06/on-managing-outrage-in-silicon-valley/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>EddieRingle</author><text>One of my first exposures to this &amp;quot;manifesto&amp;quot; was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with &amp;quot;Google has a Nazi problem.&amp;quot; The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and&amp;#x2F;or refused to actually argue the paper&amp;#x27;s points because they saw them as so ridiculous or &amp;quot;obviously&amp;quot; wrong.&lt;p&gt;I read the paper. I don&amp;#x27;t see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism, or whatever you want to call it.&lt;p&gt;I am against discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination.&lt;p&gt;If there were factual inaccuracies in what the author wrote, why not discuss them? Why not use high-quality sources to validate your argument? I wish it was the opposite, but I don&amp;#x27;t have the time to research the psychological&amp;#x2F;sociological perspectives on these issues. Human civilization has grown thanks to being able to specialize. I specialize and (hopefully) make contributions in one field, but I depend on others that have specialized elsewhere to provide knowledge and resources I can depend on.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bbctol</author><text>Because you were on Twitter? The most annoying thing about this back-and-forth ping-ponging of increasing outrage is that everyone, on both sides, only reacts to the silliest arguments. Sturgeon&amp;#x27;s Law holds up pretty well for hot takes, and the majority of anything written on an issue is likely to be bad. If most of the responses you read struck you as irrational, that&amp;#x27;s a function of the infrastructure that sends you information more than the quality of either side.</text></comment>