synth

I speak for myself alone, and the "we" was obviously rhetorical. The parent comment spoke of males in monolithic terms like "masculine identity", and I seized on that. I also never extrapolated my own personal experience onto anyone else, just the totality of my experience, which is all anyone can offer really. So there's really no need for you to project any sort of messianic arrogance on me.

If you have a problem with people speaking in broad terms (this is not what ad hominem means), you might want to reconsider the comment space of a news aggregation website as the avenue for any deep, precise insight into unbelievably complex social issues.

Race, gender, class, etc. are inextricably tangled up together. I'm not sure why you (seem to) think being underprivileged and Caucasian somehow means you will be trampled on or have your rights taken away. (How exactly?)

These "wedges between various groups in society" have existed ever since we've had an amygdala. They are innate, in that sense. We ought to accept that people as individuals, and more so as groups, are too biased when it comes to things like race, gender, etc, and we should address these problems in honest terms, as opposed to presuming that everyone is a rational actor who will realize that Racism Is Bad After All if only we did/didn't do X.

> Maybe you aren't obsessed with driving wedges between various groups in society, causing them to become factions with increasing animosity towards one another, but you're doing it.

Most of the animosity you might be referring to, has existed since day 1, but is just getting more attention from the media. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

> It's odd: No group hates underprivileged, unattractive whites males nearly as much as privileged, attractive white males. It's a cruel form of preening.

It's easier to hate people that you can relate to. Nothing odd about that. It's why you often see nerds making fun of other nerds with a ferocity greater than a non-nerd would ever muster.

To clarify, I don't object to the claim that people have wrongly used the "gender/race/etc card" when it isn't warranted. Of course this is disgusting. I take issue with the idea that, for example, if Obama were to play the race card, that this somehow represents an attack on "whiteness". This is ridiculous.

> This line of attack is not a "reminder" it is an evasion of debate, and an attempt to reject intellectual discourse for ad hominem.

I never meant to imply that. I meant that the reminder that you are privileged, isn't an attack as such. I could have phrased it better, I admit.

> It also shows that many people think that simply because of someone's skin color, gender or sexual orientation is not that of a "minority" that their opinions are groundless and based in ignorance.

> All these security issues are irrelevant because a white presumably straight guy brought them up? Really?

I agree that this is bad. But on the other hand, wouldn't one necessarily need to have these marginalized traits (skin color, gender or sexual orientation) to fully understand discrimination? You can read all you want about discrimination but unless you have actually experienced it, I don't think you'll be able to say anything new or compelling on the matter. That's what everyone wants, really; a good story.

Corny metaphor incoming: It would be like a director who has studied about 1920's history for years, having never experienced it, and a director having breathed and lived it. Who would you prefer to direct a movie, all other things being equal, about the 20's?

An aside: It's the same reason why people attack Romney's life of wealth. "How could someone so rich know how the average person feels?", goes the argument. That's a legitimate concern in my book.

> I don't see how cryptography is intrinsically racial, sexist or related to sexual orientation at all.

In itself cryptography, and by extension, mathematics, has absolutely nothing to do with gender politics or any kind of politics at all. Number theory is number theory is number theory. Yes. But it is in the CONTEXT of the larger social, cultural, political even economical factors, in which all of us live and most of us agree are important, that cryptography is made political. Why should I put on my blinders and ignore all of these issues just because the connection seems vague? (It isn't.) Here's the truth of the matter: everything is political to some extent, and there's nothing wrong with pointing this out.

I really like this quote:

"To claim to be apolitical is a contradiction. Every public stance is a political stance: all social acts can influence others, however subtly or imperceptibly. A political absolute zero is unattainable; just as all matter at a finite temperature radiates heat, all social acts radiate politics. In truth, to be "apolitical" is to be politically white-hot, to shine brightly in the colours of the status quo." -- Stephen Bond

But then again, nobody is saying that cryptography is inherently anti-woman, it's the culture that's under scrutiny.

> It seems those who engage in it feel privileged as if the rules of discourse don't apply to them and they can win by "playing the race/gender/etc. card".

I don't live in the US but I feel like this is an exaggeration. I agree that this behavior is disgusting, but the solution is to shame the individuals who engage in this behavior, not dismiss or whitewash the fundamental concerns.

> What I get concerned with is that the implicit acceptance of this wider issue claim tends to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.

The "boy's club" mentality that a lot of people glean from the "tech zeitgeist", for lack of a better term, is not entirely unfounded. I think a lot of us have a few anecdotes, where women in tech are called "irrational" or otherwise excluded solely for their gender, but we all know that anecdotes prove nothing, and since social issues don't lend themselves very well to scientific examination (too many variables), I present another angle.

Entertain the following notion: The reason it's more socially acceptable (depending on where you live) to rag on men in society, as opposed to women, is exactly because the relevant(in this case, tech) power structure is mostly male dominated. On its face, it's a terrible argument, but I submit to you that this is how all people subconsciously feel about the concept of discrimination.

And further, since people look different, inherently, the mass of people will inevitably make it an us/them issue. Always. This is one of the many ugly aspects of human nature, that I would love to see eradicated, but I'm afraid that, for now, it's a techno-utopic fantasy.

And of course, it's not fair at all, that because you or I share more "traits" with the leaders of society, that we are made to feel guilty for something we have no power to alter. I don't believe that's a good thing. But remember, the motif of the underdog overcoming all obstacles (an "us vs. them") has been around since the dawn of man, and people are naturally attracted to the "us vs. them" idea, even if it's a gross over-simplification of the truth. So everyone will naturally and subconsciously blame anyone who shares the traits of "them". That's why people, as you say "[tend] to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate."

Instead of looking at these issues as cases of reverse sexism: "oh you believe that just because she's a woman, she can't make it in the tech world and needs protection/help", I look at it as acknowledging that all people have certain cognitive biases and that the majority of people will act on them subtly, all of which add up.

Anyone with a note of clarity and dignity in their heads knows that all people are of the same seed, and that, ignoring serious brain/developmental damage, all people are able to do much the same work, albeit at varying speed/efficiency.

But I also know, that subconsciously, I will tend to look down on "black people" as a whole if I see a black person to something wrong, as opposed to someone who looks like me, in which case I will look down on the individual. The sad truth is that all people will unconsciously and subtly ignore reason to all sorts of cognitive biases without realizing it. Everyone, you and me included. And to add further insult to injury, we will call that "rational" or "reason".

For example, people will tout IQ scores to show that blacks are inferior to whites, as if intelligence is determined by someone's ability to solve a few geometry puzzles, and that this further can be reduced to a single positive integer. This is what passes for rationality in some circles. Just a reminder.

[These articles highlight my point better, for those who are interested.]

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/04/17/ego-depletion/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallac...

My point is that we are not the rational actors we would like ourselves to be. We need to acknowledge that base, petty, irrational human nature still rules much of society, and we need to accept that we are all (everyone, to differing extents) parts of larger social mechanisms that subtly, but systematically, exclude anyone who looks or acts different.

Another example; discriminatory laws (like Hate Crimes) seem to, at face value, unjustly make the law about skin color. But viewed from a larger historical, cultural and social perspective, they're an attempt to give minorities more of a legal foot to stand on in a society where blacks are sentenced harder than whites for the exact same crimes. The guilt we are made to feel is the price we all pay (yes, even minorities who happen to also be part of a single dominant social group are made to feel guilty).

> the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.

I too want to live in a world where everyone is judged not according to their superficial traits, but according to their skills. A world of can's and can-not's, not have and have-not's. A world where rational scientific inquiry is separated neatly from politics (I assume you agree). But I further realize that we are an innately irrational and fearful species, who will seize on anything, statistics, science, even rationality, to justify our prejudices and worldviews.

That's why I believe positive discrimination is (fundamentally) good for our age. Yes, these measures are imperfect, inelegant, ugly ad-hoc solutions that create double-standards in society, but instead of pretending that simple, elegant solutions to complex problems are good, we have to face reality; sometimes, complex social problems need ugly, unjust solutions, until the time where a better solution is made real, because the alternative is to let human irrationality go unchecked and unaccountable.

Just to sum up all my rambling; we must accept that the problem is human nature, and that the "us vs. them" exists because of human nature, and that the ugly double standards of positive discrimination exist to counter-balance the effects of that, at the unfortunate but small price of further legitimizing it. These measures exist to reminds us that one-sided discrimination exists to this day. That's why we need them and that's why I think the benefits greatly outweigh the harms in the long run.

Edit: Looking at the post now I realized I typed way too much text in one comment. I'm sorry about this.

  INTERIOR, SOULLESS CORPORATE OFFICE. DUSK.

  A dark, sleek office room, filled with cigar smoke, expensive 
  gadgets and designer furniture. The cigar smoke rises above 
  Hollywood executive GOLDBERG like a whirlwind, framing his 
  grinning face...

  He dials his Blackberry phone to the hum of his $9000 Dell PC,
  while leaning back into his chair a little.

               GOLDBERG
               (on the phone)
         Is this The Agency?

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
               (in a clearly american accent)
         How can I help you, Mister Goldberg?

               GOLDBERG
         I would like to order a raid.

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Yes sir, what do you want with it?

               GOLDBERG
         I want a heavily armed para-military squad, 
         carrying the latest gear. I want two helicopters, 
         half a dozen paddy wagons, the whole works.

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Would you like dogs with that?

               GOLDBERG
         Yes.

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Is the recipient an organization or an individual.

               GOLDBERG
               (smiles)
         Both.

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Alright, sir. Must be quite a party you're planning.

               GOLDBERG
               (ecstatically)
         Party? I'm about to destroy democracy as we know it!
         Nobody, henceforth, will ever be able to make 
         millions off of stolen media without repercussions!

               GOLDBERG
               (looking at the viewer ominously)
         Nobody.

Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole? Really? Try swapping sexism with homophobia or racism, and see how ridiculous you sound. (Note: I agree with your first assertion.)

First, throwing the term 'racist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of racism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as racist, but often whites as a whole as being part of a "whites only-club", in turn implying that white identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine racial equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as racist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (essentially) a racial role for blacks as "poor persecuted minorities" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, racial inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a white journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's white"?

A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society in favor of "gender/colorblind" solutions that only make sense if everyone agrees to ignore all cultural, social, and historical context.

Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized, or could be in the future. And no, being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.

If we put on our blinders and ignore the larger issue, asking an artist for free stuff is rather condescending. As Mueller says, why should magazines, advertisers, websites or corporations expect or ask for free work? (Let's not pretend it's anything other than this) If the artist didn't already put it on a Creative Commens license or similar (or has indicated that he is willing to give non-commercial licenses to people who ask), then flat out asking artists for free stuff to further your own company is tantamount to asking for a free lunch.

In this narrow sense, Tristan's "giving things away for free makes me and people all over the world happy" post is not an argument against that either. It's just a feel-good argument for using a CC-type license in the first place, which was never the issue.

"I give my work away for free because it makes other people smile and I like that" is not a rebuttal to "people shouldn't be taking other people's work for free if the author doesn't want them to". If anything it's just a smug attempt at being holier-than-thou.

Wait, lawyers cost money and the legal systems of different countries aren't perfect in every way? Welp time to roll over and let other people take my work for free without incident.

"And what about when your camera floats around automatically getting every available shot, every available composition, framing, leaving you to just select the best?"

Haha yeah, I guess if you disregard the context of time, weather, effort, mobility, and all that non-idealized crap, you could probably systematically move around with your magic jetpack and a camera with infinite battery or whatever it is camera's have nowadays. Then you could simply brute-force every available composition like a computer would. Beep boop.

"There are only so many parameters that make up a recording of light. Sorry, but I do not see a massive amount of skill involved in it now that you can brute force most of it, or have it automatically done for you."

Fellow computer: sudo take a gorgeous photo of a snowy landscape, and fall back on the brute-force algorithm if necessary. Make it quick, I have to find my way back by noon and I don't trust my A* algorithm.

Just as stupid; to expect people not to sue you if you take someone else's intellectual property.

Do you know what lying under oath is? Do you know what libel is? Do you know what incitement is?

What kind of idiot are you.

Well, if you subscribe to a solipsist, intent-is-everything idea of morality, then it makes sense to believe that the mere act of saying that women are hysterical bitches who need to get back in the kitchen, doesn't make you a misogynist. But that isn't the point.

Entertain this notion; words mean things, whether you like it or not. Your conscious state of mind is completely irrelevant to anyone but yourself. When people roll their eyes at your unfunny racist jokes, it's not necessarily because they think you're racist; it's because you're saying racist things.

So, why is it offensive to say black people are criminals who love KFC and watermelons? Well, maybe you should ask a black person, because you certainly wouldn't know. But be sure to use "offensive" in scare-quotes to hammer home the point that you Just-Don't-Get-What-The-Fuss-Is-All-About. Remember also to point out that most people are too stupid/crazy to understand why AIDS jokes which may include a synonym of the word "faggot", can be offensive to homosexuals. Because hey, it's just a word after all. There couldn't possibly be any societal, cultural, or historical contexts behind words, right?

And then you blab on about sexual taboos like it has any real bearing on anything. But really what could anyone expect from someone who thinks that the attempt to use more inclusive language in public discourse amounts to "the ultimate kind of bigotry of them all".

It seems "politically incorrect humor" has become the new code word for "racist jokes".

>Some of us actually appreciate being a life form, expiration date and all.

Good for you. Some of us, however, think that people should be able to choose their own fates, time of death included. People are not defined by their expiration dates, but by their lives, accomplishments and so on. To accept death as "natural" makes as much sense as accepting polio as natural and just allowing the disease to ravage the body instead of applying medicine. Hey, it's "natural" after all, right? Can't be bad if it's from nature, right?

>To live long/forever is to halt evolution.

FYI evolution does not mean progress, just adaptation. What does it matter to halt or slow down this completely arbitrary mechanism at this point in our evolution? (Which many would argue happened a long time ago anyways.)

>I'm more than happy to take my shot at life, live my 8 decades, then get out of life's way. After a certain stage in life, we take more than we contribute in terms of scarce resource.

It's funny to think that the life expectancy has increased so much in the last few millennia. What would you have said if the average life span was around 25 like it was a few thousand years ago?

>When my time comes, I will be more than happy to get out of the way and let time march on.

Okay, go ahead and be apathetic about death if you want, but don't pretend you're some vanguard of the sanctity of life.

I'm not saying life extension will be without problems, of course. All I'm saying is that accepting death as inevitable when we are ever closer to conquering it, is not noble, it's defeatist. It's clinging to tradition. I say research away and may our children live to at least 200.

I can recommend the following to accompany Turing's paper.

http://plover.net/~bonds/mind.html

I don't know where the idea comes from that academics value elegance in programming type problems more than businesspeople anyway. In my experience, academics are the ones who only care that it works. It might be an abstract thing that works rather than a practical thing, but it has to work and no further. In business (businesses I've worked with), you have a motivation to make something that is GOOD, and "it works" is never good enough, and only making things that work is a good way to get managed out or fired.

I've never seen code in the business world that even approached being as horrid as the stuff I saw in academia.