lsiebert

I wonder about how much corporate jargon is a signal of belonging to an in group, and how that might contribute to discrimination on the basis of race or social class.

I think we should save jargon for things that we don't already have easy terms for, and explain them clearly and regularly. I don't really care who supposedly "belongs" in coding or startup or corporate culture.

I care what people can do when they are actively included. Anything that makes that harder seems like being intentionally inefficient in a way that rewards people on the basis of social affiliation instead of merit.

What heavy progressive bias is that?

I'd go farther than even that.

I'd say that by talking about mistakes without blame, I think we actually avoid people making mistakes because folks can learn from other's mistakes, and see them as something they could just as easily do, and so internalize the lesson.

Ah that's because at many companies if you make a mistake you are a mistake.

Which is BS tbh. Everyone makes mistakes.

I think with politicians and political appointees, it's a little different because that's very much a public trust. Nobody deserves to hold political office, they should instead be deserving of it by being ethical and having integrity.

I think that's basically what I said? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

It's not been shown to be effective, there's no reason to change it, and it can be harmful to the mental health of LGBTQ+ folks.

That's what the American Psychiatric Association says: "https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-reiter..."

It's dehumanizing and problematic to classify people's healthy bodies as anomalous or defective.

I don't see how your appeal to tradition is sufficient to justify your view.

Science generally accepts that the identities it discusses are nominalist and conditional. We humans create boundaries and classifications by grouping elements, but no such group or organization is objectively correct, some are just subjectively useful for particular purposes.

I suggest you read up on intersex people if you think biology is straightforward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

As for diagnostic criteria, they vary from country to country. Here's whats in the DSM 5

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphori...

When people talk about things as constructs, they aren't saying that they are completely artificial or fake. They are saying that our understanding of gender is a construction, built on top of human bodies which are incredibly complex and different from each other.

Like if I had to pick a metaphor, as I understand things, for HN, think of it an imperfect binary classification for assigned gender at birth API, a leaky abstraction on top of society understandings that are themselves constructed the messy analog physicality of people's "biological sex" which is not as simple as two options male and female, not even just in terms of chromosomal sex. Add in hormones levels, hormone sensitivity, genetic differences, brain structures, body hair etc, and even what people think of as basic "biological sex" is actually multifaceted and variable.

So in talking about gender as a construct, rather than something innate and natural and binary, it becomes possible to talk about how the API was developed, and maybe say, hey this API is a little simplistic.

Do people who transition and later regret it explain transgender folks who are happy to have transitioned?

Not really, because they are different groups.

You can still buy this book from the publisher if you really want to.

You shouldn't buy it though, not if you want a real look at the experiences of the majority of transgender people, the views of the majority of the medical community, or the science that disrupts traditional western views about gender and biology.

Nobody chooses to be a transgender person. It just happens sometimes, like being born with 6 fingers on your hands. It might be difficult to fit in, but it's not bad or harmful intrinsically. Some people are different, and sometimes other people treat those who are different as a threat to them, instead of a chance to question their assumptions about what it means to be human and the diversity of human experience.

Unlike a person being transgender, that type of judgment of others is a choice. And sometimes people who make that choice then choose to write books about transgender folks to promote a political agenda, finding anecdotal situations to to justify their views.

Instead of assessing the experiences or actions of the majority of a group, they treat something deeply personal and difficult and subject to discrimination as an intellectual debate and look for ways to justify harmful policies, ignoring the demonstrated psychological benefits of gender affirming treatment for transgender people¹, or the differences in the brains of transgender people².

Sometimes people make a choice not to carry those kind of books. Amazon being huge and the effects of that is an entirely separate issue from their choice not to carry a particular book.

1. https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/study-find... 2. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgend...

intent may be a mitigating factor for some, but the harm should be judged by those harmed, should it not? If they can't speak to the harm, who can?

Honestly this should be permission based, like you click a button to authorize disabling it in the browser.

There's also been an increase in violent hate crimes. https://www.npr.org/2020/11/16/935439777/fbi-report-bias-mot...

I think if you are white, you can engage with this entirely as an intellectual debate, or think of it as not a big deal.

It's easier then to forget that it's a word still used regularly by people committing violent hate crimes against Black folks, and those cheering them on.

Recording cops while music is playing should be a fair use under US copyright law, right?

So it's mostly about the take-down system and it's abusiveness.

If your normalize getting it done and exclude people who don't from opportunities, you incentivize people who want to participate, not just in receiving the benefits, but in participating in the group.

I think of it much the same way I think of driver's licenses. I believe if you are driving on your own private property you don't need one. But if you are using public roads and putting people at risk, there's an expectation of training and the ability to revoke permission if you harm others.

Telling people what they did wrong so they can correct it is appropriate. You don't have to tell them how you detected it, and keeping them banned until they fix it is fine.

Also at minimum I'd think I'd allow them access to past emails as a default.

You know, if I was providing support, I'd consider it a point to make it as easy for customers as possible to know what to do. Like if I banned them I'd include how to appeal/fix and how to get more info.

The people who don't get the vaccine aren't just hurting themselves. We need herd immunity for people who can't take it, or for whom it won't benefit.

There are definitely people who may not benefit as much from the vaccine because they are immuno-compromised for example.

The only reason not to take it is if your doctor tells you not to. Unless they've told us not to for medical reasons, we should take it if we can get it, ASAP.

And I think pressuring people to take it is appropriate, given that it's not just them at risk.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/who-can-and-cant-safe...

When there's enough people vaccinated for herd immunity so there isn't community spread.

Sadly it didn't have to be this bad. Compare the US to New Zealand.

Looks like they were voting on senators in 96, passed a measure in 98, and had their first all mail vote in 2000.

Apparently it also saves a bunch of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

Three states exclusively use mail in ballots (starting with Oregon in 2000 I believe so at least 20 years), and if there is epidemic of criminal kneecapping going on, I feel like we'd have heard about it by now.

I can only assume you live in a place in gotham pre batman, or vice city, or maybe a third world nation with super corrupt police.

Do you get a lot of interference putting mail in the mailbox where you live? Because it's not really a big thing in industrialized nations like the US, afaik.

It's pretty easy and quick for me to mail stuff. Convenient too, I can use any mailbox at any time of day or night, or go to the post office. Mostly I use my building's outgoing mailbox.

Anyway if I was worried about some sort of anti democratic street toughs or whatever it is you are positing, I'd say decentralized efforts would be way harder to disrupt or influence.

This seems just like a way to delay and disrupt the vote under the guise of election integrity. So basically classic voter suppression.

Looks like they restored some but not all of what they took down. https://swp.org.uk/1049-2/

Personally I just give everything the Trump administration says high scrutiny. Just lie after lie, mistruth after mistruth, so that it's hard to believe anything that someone outside them doesn't back up. Especially on computer security... the absolute level of obvious falsehood and idiotic statements from Trump and his supporters about election security would be farcical if it wasn't so destructive to American democracy and democratic norms.

But I believe that, while legitimate election security researchers have all basically said there is no reason to doubt the election or believe there was any sort of widespread fraud or abuse (and such statements conform to what was said in court, where lawyers can face consequences for stating falsehoods), legitimate computer security researchers outside the Trump Administration have pointed to Russia on the Solarwinds hack, so I give that claim more credence.

And yet they believe outright lies, lies repeated by GOP leaders, journalists etc, who at the same time denigrated the main stream media and scientists, eroding trust in neutral institutions.

Evaluations are hard to make when all the sources you trust are lying to you.

I think if you look into the history of hate speech, the internet and social media (defined broadly to include BBS systems and internet forums), you'll see this has been a constant problem.

One that groups like the NAACP and others have been warning about for years if not decades.

Well, probably because the rhetoric was presumed entirely rhetorical, and then Trump supporters including white supremacists invaded the Capital building talking about hunting down members of congress to ensure Trump's victory and 5 people died.

And I don't think they had deals, it's more like nobody wants to be the last place where Trump is posting.