masondixon's comments

Sets a good precedent doesn't it?

I hate what this PC culture has become. You have to watch yourself so carefully or you will get publicly shamed like this. And if someone over reacts there is no consequence. Its a race to the bottom.

> I recall studies that women are less likely to ask for raises or are worse at haggling.

The issue I see is that a lot of these issues are just about being in "a minority group". But a lot of complaints are levelled against the "male gender". This is sexist. Everything else is not.

Sexism has to be when people are treated differently solely because of their sex. In the tech world and corporate world, there is often a large imbalance between male and female, so that the treatment of a minority group appears sexist, because females are usually the minority.

The best test is to reverse the groupings and apply the same test.

When you think about it like this, it becomes less about "men" being somehow inherently bad which is a gross generalisation, and more about "humans are terrible people sometimes". But the issue with the latter statement is its not easy where to throw the blame.

You watch the video?

Agree.

Everyone reading this please, please, please watch the video.

It is ridiculously not what it seems. I read the comments here, and the FB post and after watching it in full context you get such a different perspective.

And it is just as the lady on the panelist has said in her comment.

The moderator is trying to simplify things for the audience.

After introducing her he tries to create an analogy as to how to think about it and says:

"I'm giving a very garbled caricature of it, you're the expect, why don't you tell us."

Why would he use self-deprecating language if he was being sexist? He is openly saying that she could explain it better.

He talks over her a few times, but he is in know way talking down to her, rather just trying to place everything in his overarching analogy which is the role of the moderator. To maintain a common thread running through the discussion.

Then he reframes it again, and concedes: "I'm putting this in a provacative way. Please explain it to us properly."

Again, he is even acknowledging when he feels he is being provocative.

After the interruption:

"That always happens to me...do I talk too much?"

Which seems like he knows that he gets overly excited sometimes and talks to much.

Seriously people!

100% agree.

> I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism

So who is sexist in this scenario?

Turns out its the feminist in the audience assuming that a woman needs someone to cause a public disturbance because she could not help herself be heard.

Why is it every time some social justice event gains public attention, it turns out to not be sexism/racist/etc. at all.

> a podcast I love is Planet Money, and they take the time to interview economists on both sides

Great tip. The solution to so many problems is to involve challenging opposing points of view.

There is a big problem with the left in America rejecting opposing points of view. "Safe space" and "shut it down" culture, etc. Mainstream media newsrooms packed with only liberal reporters, etc.

But unfortunately everyone gravitates to places of comfort around people with like-minded views, because its too difficult to constantly be questioning your beliefs or challenging someone else.

Good examples are Fox News' Hannity and Colmes and CNN's Crossfire. Both shuttered, and just ended up with replacement shows with one point of view.

I find that more and more Trump people can make the arguments of left-wing people, but the inverse is not true.

Politics divides us. The more we can do together whilst holding opposing world views the better.

If the left didn't excommunicate anyone they disagree with maybe there would be more a chance to have reasoned political discussions, but so far, anywhere online where there is a left-wing community, all opposing viewpoints are silenced. See Reddit, etc.

Every headline on this story has been misleading.

When I read it I thought to myself - this is the first thing I really disagree with Trump on...but reading on:

> The supplemental questionnaire will only be given to “a fraction of 1% of the 13 or so million people who apply for a visa to visit the United States each year

You think the internet would be just as efficiently run if the government controlled it without a profit incentive?

I think the left are naive to how lazy people are without the right incentives, and how without a monetary incentive office politics can be ridiculously crippling.

Maybe the HN perspective is driven by the fact that open-source in software engineering has flourished - leading many to think that great things can be built without monetary incentive.

Or perhaps its because they are surrounded by very smart people and start believing that the rest of society operates at the same calibre.

There is enough politics involved inside companies where huge monetary incentives are up for grabs, when you take away this monetary incentive, it becomes insanely political.

I think liberals' judgement is bad. They thought they would win the election and did not.

My apologies.

But it is a reference to my earlier sentence where I add: "If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property."

The point I am making is that I think its better to leave someone's private property, than to stay, when there is a dispute and there is the threat of physical confrontation. They have more claim to kick you off than you have to stay when force is involved.

I am talking about before we know who is in the right. If I trespass on someone's property that I believe I can rightfully be on, and they threaten to physically remove me, I will leave, and get the police to remove them. If someone trespasses on my property that they claim they have a right to be on, I will make them leave with force if necessary, and then they can get the police to remove me.

I think its sensible to default to the owner in these situations.

But I agree its a weak point and if we examine tenancy laws then it definitely doesn't universally hold well. But a good rule of thumb.

Its comes down to inconveniencing all the passengers because one person doesn't comply. As a passenger I would appreciate someone being removed like they were. Otherwise what if I am the next person chosen to get off the plane. If I were chosen I would get off the plane.

So from my perspective, they did the right thing, if I evaluate the outcome selfishly.

I think its all about personal feelings anyway. I feel angry that someone thinks they are to be held to a different set of rules than anyone else (as other passengers got off), and that they think its okay to inconvenience all the other passengers.

Other people look at the outcome, and feel sorry for the guy because of his injuries, and are angry at law enforcement because they are anti-authoritarian - maybe something to do with their upbringing or their status in society I don't know.

And I understand that on a human level that people feel differently. But one is more rationale than the other. And this is what I believe separates the political spectrum in the US too - but that is a debate for another day.

> That's a direct copy/paste from your comment.

Sorry, I cannot find me ever saying that.

What if he runs on the plane? What is the difference?

Watch the video. He is literally screaming. Why would you refuse an order from the police. I think its an ideological difference, but I can't imagine refusing or resisting police. I think young people today get kicks from refusing authority, but it is simply not rationale.

What is the difference? One guy got to walk down a corridor and sat down in his seat. The other guy didn't. It is the same.

If you don't allow law enforcement to do their job, the world would grind to a halt. If the flight was cancelled because of this guy, I think the passengers would quickly turn on him.

Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same.

Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?