Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmy1 | Hacker News Reader

Unpopular opinion: this is why the "dudebros" and their like keep getting hired. They are more than happy to do their work, accept their salary, and move on, and not have to turn everything into "changing the world"

View on HN

Even before the "dudebros", i'd argue most scientists and engineers didn't really care too much about the moral implications of their work. Guns, bombs etc... were all invented by brilliant minds, we'd like to think we as a society have collectively evolved cause we have small machines in our hands with all the world's knowledge but esp in the usa, looking outside you see that nothing has really changed that much in the way humans think.

I mean, scientists for the Manhattan Project were remorseful after the fact at least. In general though, scientists are primarily driven by curiosity with little regard for the safety of themselves or others. If IRBs didn't exist, I assure you that some experiment of dubious ethics would be in progress right now without it even occurring to the primary investigator that it might be morally problematic (it's important to note that with some researchers, moral issues just don't click mentally and there's not a question of malice). Even with an IRB, you still get studies like the Facebook mood manipulation fiasco at Cornell [0].

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jul/0...

> most scientists and engineers didn't really care too much about the moral implications of their work

Have you considered that they might care very much about the moral implications of their work — and be proud to contribute to their nation's armed might?

> to contribute to their nation's armed might

I would extend that to the hope for peace through strength (might).

Of course not, this is silicon valley.

I don't see the connection between dudebros and working to get a salary and not much more.

Dudebros was purposefully in quotes -- basically in reference to these days if you aren't a bleeding heart leftist and being actively engaged in being an ally, or other social justice cause (or at least give the facade that you are on social media) you are guilty by association, or at least placed in a less advantageous position versus your similar compatriot who is following the cultural winds. Gone are the times where you can keep your political beliefs at home, which ironically is now a form of workplace discrimination. That's something I think we will find out that previous generations got right.

The previous generation you're referring to is one that actively discriminated against women and people of color in the work force... probably wasn't hard for them to keep politics out of the work place because there was more homogeneity.

Discriminating against those who hold discriminatory views is different than discriminating against people based on their ethnicity or gender. And yes, I fully understand that what is or isn't a "discriminatory viewpoint" can be subjective. My point is that it's still a false equivalency to say that discriminating against someone who thinks women are lesser than them is the same as discriminating against women.

> The previous generation you're referring to is one that actively discriminated against women and people of color in the work force.

Some part of the previous generation did that. Some, obviously, did not, just as some part of the current generation continue to do that, and some do not. In some cases there is a real, legitimate argument that the discrimination has reversed -- there is a lot of discrimination and exclusion going on in this country all in the name of tolerance, inclusion and diversity.

In any case I appreciate you making my point for me.

It appears you're saying that only "100%" and "0%" states are distinguishable from each other, and that the universe of the superposition of states boils down to "some do and some do not", which are all indistinguishable from each other.

Can you clarify that that's what you're asserting? That's what it looks like, and I sincerely hope I'm wrong, because that's a very weird hill to defend.

What exactly makes one a "dudebro"? The overwhelming majority of usages of this kind of terminology (and related words like "brogrammer") seem to fall into either of two categories: slights against co-workers that work out, play sports, and engage in other kinds of physical "dude" activities - usually motivated by attempts to justify the unhealthy lifestyles of the words' users. Or as a derogatory term for men that don't fit the typical Silicon Valley mold of "geek" culture.

Neither of which necessarily relates to one's willingness to effect change in the world.

It is about as meaningful as SJW essentially in that it means what the user wants it to. It could mean everything that you said. Or it could mean someone who is a crass overgrown fratboy stereotype with no interests beyond money, alcohol, and sex and someone who works out and enjoys beer but can moderate themselves and have serious interests isn't one. It could be a flat out term of prejudice or cognitive armor to avoid listening to someone because they are too masculine.

Not wanting to change the world makes me a "dudebro"?

That's not what the OP said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus#Explana...

It is what he said, you even linked the correct logic behind it.

He said dudebros don't want to change the world. He didn't say everyone who doesn't want to change the world is a dudebro.

Yeah I really doubt that, especially at a place like Google that has worked very hard make their work culture be the anthesis of a "dudebro". If anything, it's the modern left-leaning liberal millennial that wants to "make a change in the world" and to perform "meaningful work" that are getting lured in, propping up these companies, and are now the ones wondering how they got to working for these companies willingly work with the Chinese on censorship projects.

"Unpopular opinion" is that people want to work for money?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com