webehere

5 ms·

1.
by webehere 11y ago
So there is not a single situation in which any group is allowed to be excluded based on anything that in't symptomatic of some larger conspiracy? "I don't want Danny to come and see Jim Jeffries comedy because Jim says a lot
2.
by webehere 12y ago
Criticism was valid. Why not name a successor? Otherwise, the Economists's review read more like a critique of Yellow Submarine - I mean, "Worst Beatles Album" is hardly a critique, and more of a "worst of a great bunch&
3.
by webehere 12y ago
"I've created a cool game with heaps of female characters" "YOU MISOGYNIST! The female characters are all X". "We've taken feedback and made some Y & Z characters as well". "YOU MISOGYNIST! T
4.
by webehere 12y ago
Problem exists that CAN affect women != women's problem. Problem that ONLY affects women == women's problem. Wish that distinction was made more often. That the 20% figure for women is so consistent (and a lie I might add, I doub
5.
by webehere 12y ago
Why don't we remove ALL *isms, and call them biasses? "The X bias is Y, and from the data we'd expect a bias of Z, therefore the bias is D". By calling it sexism, we make it a value judgement. By talking about bias, we r
6.
by webehere 12y ago
The problem with all this talk is that the scale is weird. Silicon Valley is what? LinkedIn, or a 2015 YC summer intake company? At the scale of LinkedIn, maybe this argument is inconsequential in many ways. At the scale of a 2015 YC summer
7.
by webehere 12y ago
> Reality is under no obligation to live up to our ideals. I think we should make a T-Shirt of that!
8.
by webehere 12y ago
There is like a MILLION of these threads: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.c... I get it - I fell the same way - but it feels a little clingey now!