foolrush

The posts to these sorts of articles in a forum absolutely littered with male white dudes and a dearth of sociologists is a perfect echo chamber.

Have a look at your statement and see where cultural feedback loops apply.

> Why does YC invest overwhelmingly in more young men than women?

Equating investment, or return on investment of capital, as a barometer of "success" or some form of empiricist metric of adaptability is a first issue.

> Is this just a big ole bastion of discrimination here?

As to the second point regarding discrimination, yes. It is a perfect case in point as to where and how discriminatory practice gains a foothold.

> People are openly getting chosen for jobs on the basis of their gender or race, and that's 'disgusting'.

Why exactly do you think so many men, and in particular _white_ men, are in these positions to begin with?

Given that "race" is a social construct...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...

Unfettered, profit-at-all-costs is the problem. Paying for something brings no shred of chance that your data isn't being harvested. Zero.

Most people pay for credit cards by way of yearly fees, they track you. Purchase music? Your music is cross referenced in the name of discoverability. Hardware? Same.

Some of those things might be helpful in some contexts, and in others not. That fuzzy line is the discourse.

With all of that said, to cite the locus of all evil as “ad supported” as the problem is a logical fault line.

Eight. Stops. Is. Not. High.

This is absolute quackery.

Your camera's cell phone barely manages to hold approximately eight stops of latitude. Blowing out that pathetic dynamic range has no grounding in relation to any notion of "eye strain".

One would have thought that the thousands upon thousands of hours of daylight exposure would have already made us all blind if this was actually solid research.

Section 130 was introduced in 1946 with the new legislation. Beyond that, you missed the part where they discuss the lack of civil recourse / remedies for hate speech prior to the war.

> most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.

Let's skip your "most" and at least agree that the issue is finding the fuzzy line between proper discourse and hate?

Whether you agree or not, the existing edicts in Weimar Germany were ineffective and neutered, in addition to being undermined / ignored by the ruling party, which essentially calls into question of the status of the rules being "laws" at all. The laws changed quite drastically after the war, so much so that the new legal construct was entirely different, including civil remedies.

Cite the laws, cite the history of the dates implemented. Civil remedies did not exist.

I have provided you with actual legally traceable citations to law and their implementations. You cited a propaganda poster.

You are conflating a regime of arbitrary censorship with specific and nuanced legislation that was implemented as a direct result of Nazism. To argue that the basis of Germany's contemporary hate speech laws, including the most recent legislation regarding social media, is not a direct result of Germany's experience with Nazism is delusional.

http://www.ecaj.org.au/2014/critics-of-section-18c-get-histo...

> there was no equivalent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Weimar Germany. The only laws against hate speech were criminal offences, not civil remedies. Weimar Germany had nothing equivalent to the framework which currently exists under the Racial Discrimination Act within which complaints of racial vilification have, in the vast majority of cases, been successfully conciliated through the Australian Human Rights Commission or resolved by direct negotiations between the parties.

> In Weimar Germany, the absence of civil remedies was made worse by the fact that the relevant criminal offences were honeycombed with immunities for members of the Reichstag, the German Parliament. Nazi members of Parliament became the nominal publishers of single or multiple antisemitic publications. This facade meant that no one could be prosecuted for the hate crimes perpetrated by the publications. The Reichstag could waive immunity for its members, but did so rarely.

Have you researched the history of section 130 and 131? It doesn't appear you have any awareness as to the history of the laws, nor what constitutes a "hate" law. Basis for 130 131 laid in 1946.

History of hate laws in Germany here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12273096193760058...

> On May 23, 1949, the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany was promulgated to serve as the cornerstone of a democratic state designed to protect individual liberty. Accordingly, the Grundgesetz, or Basic Law, is patterned upon the tradition of Western constitutionalism and is a direct historical reaction to the disastrous Weimar Republic and Third Reich." The Basic Law regulates two types of rights and relations. The first type, the Basic Laws, pertain to the rights of individuals and the state. The Basic Laws are characterized by many of the classic human rights found in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The second type, the Rights to a Free Democratic Order, concern the rights of governmental organs, the organization of the state, and the relationships between the various state organs.

> There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power.

False.

https://www.unodc.org/cld/en/legislation/deu/german_criminal...

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...

So you are suggesting that a country that birthed one of the worst fascist regimes, and that implemented strong hate speech laws after such, is behind the USA?

Look to Germany. I said "behind" because it requires a certain national hubris to not acknowledge the horrific turn of events that came out of a country, and in turn, acknowledge what they have learned from it.

Depending on the words, it is entirely illegal in many countries around the world. The USA is behind the curve on that.

Indeed I do support hate speech laws. As does a majority of the rest of the world.

There is a correlation between the support of freedom of speech and gender / race, unsurprisingly.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816....

I would happily "kill" your idea of "beauty" if it means more people can live the life you are without detrimental effects of hate speech on them, yes.

You realize which country has some of the more effective and stringent hate speech laws in the world? If you do, did you stop to ask yourself why?

Social science research indicates that it isn't about "hiding" hate directed speech, but rather to consider the impact on the victims of such speech. That is, when one is able to say the word "hiding", it is spoken from the position of privilege; it is a very real existential threat to those impacted.

Constricting hate speech has a notable impact on the dignity and well-being of those impacted[1].

[1] EG: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2015.11...

The inevitable discussion about the need for hate speech laws in the USA is lurking. Sadly, the USA had a chance at them a while back, but I believe it was Justice Scalia who struck it down?

When the girls are doing their rounds, I don't believe you are able to donate directly as an "instead of" option. That is, instead of cookies, a donation box, which would clearly state _all_ proceeds would be going to support the local troop.

It is also quite shameful that the distribution of funds isn't clearly indicated when the girls are funding. I suspect more people would donate directly instead of the cookies if they saw the distribution ratios.

Here, I believe the Guides take 3.00$ of the 5.00$, with a mere 1.00$ going to the girl in question. I would prefer to simply give 100% of the 5.00$ to the local troop that the girl is supporting, and in turn support five girls in her troop for the same donation amount.

So happy to see someone else flag this horrible abuse.

I would rather donate the cost of a case of cookies to the Guides than support the free labour, but of course the policy forbids such donations. I would think many other people would be happy to offer a 5$ donation direct to the Guides rather than line the pockets of a corporate parasite.

Reasonable might be to move higher up the food chain and impose life sentences on the people with the dollars ordering these species to be killed.

It is just a bowl of tragedy down in the trenches.

Of course it is, which disregards a good deal of research in cultural studies accumulating over the past half of a century. But you know that, as you clearly have studied the field.

Humanist mythological lore that was propagated heavily in mid to late 20th century.

See antihumanism.

Mike Godwin:

> By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you.

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320?s=1...

You are shocked because there is still quite a degree of colonial thinking that is pervasive.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...

> The total ban does mean that only criminals can produce pornography, and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.

There are two parts here.

First is the tautological nature of your first sentence; if it is banned, then by definition the creation of such makes one a "criminal", where it would seem that you infer a class of person in the first sentence.

Given a potential misreading of the first portion, the second is clearer:

> and criminals by their nature don't have the moral qualms with committing further crimes.

Again, you assign "nature" to a "class" by definition. It may be legal to murder / sentence to death someone over gender, race, selling alcohol or marijuana, or otherwise. Even sitting in a bus in the wrong spot could result in being labeled a criminal.

I am reasonably certain you didn't intend to paint the above examples of criminality as somehow correlating to a lack of morality. "Further crimes" is a slippery slope trope, where no such predicate exists without examining the contexts of the initial crime. Again, think about sitting on a bus in the wrong spot. “Serial offenders” here might be celebrated later.

Hence the caution against using the term. There are a good number of laws currently that, after some duration of time, may seem anywhere from dated to outright bigoted / horrible. "Criminality" is a social construct, and as such, we should be skeptical and careful about the erroneous connective tissue between criminality and some sort of Humanist trait attachment.

Careful leaning on criminality; it isn't a thing. Remember that sitting in certain areas of a bus, voting as a woman or a person of colour, etc. was encoded into law and legislation. Violating those laws becomes criminality.

> No, I mean that by banning porn creates an illegal market for it. Supply and demand.

Not all things in one's culture should be viewed as a market transaction, nor is it appropriate to overfit them as such.

> Additionally, we identify tracts whose properties predict reading skill but remain fixed throughout the intervention, suggesting that some anatomical properties stably predict the ease with which a child learns to read, while others dynamically reflect the effects of experience.

This is pure, uneducated rubbish.

The reason that social science can't model (aka overfit) many phenomena, is that it involves strictly nonlinear data where cultures and humans are involved.

Do some reading. Educate yourself. You may change your vantage.