What about all the novel things about physics that we won't ever hear from the gay people who are forced out of physics because of a life-threatening climate of hate and bigotry?
But the unreasonable people saying "gay people are evil" are not even pretending to be joking. They have killed.
So I think Sam lacks empathy. Try this thought exercise. Replace the word "gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you belong to. How does that make you feel? Would you want to work with that person? How well do you think that will go over in SF, HN, or America?
Sam is both gay and jewish...
| Replace the word "gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you belong to. How does that make you feel? Would you want to work with that person?
I don't think "white people are evil" is a controversial statement is SF.
As for the second part, valley employees have gotten in trouble for criticizing "white". Wasn't there an outrage over Github?
Their argument is 100% relevant to the sentiment that was expressed. If the stated benefit of excluding one group to allow for the free expression of the other is increased scientific discourse, how do we balance that against the loss of discourse from the excluded?
I don't quite get how one jumps from 'we have to tolerate different ideas' to 'people will be excluded'. How does tolerating different ideas excludes people ?
Imagine you worked in a 90% gay office, and it was tolerated to disparage you and remark on the vile nature of your heterosexuality on a daily basis.
Only an exceptionally strong willed person would stay very long and it still probably would reduce their output of novel ideas.
The argument is not, and should never be, that we should fire people for their thoughts. If someone is strongly socially conservative, that's their right. But is is perfectly reasonable to require people to leave those conversations at home when they head into the office.
tolerating [this] different ideas excludes [gay] people