You get upset when people present you with links to facts to respond to your proposed ideas?
I can sympathize that it is definitely no fun if you feel like your ideas aren't getting the attention they deserve, but if you have trouble defending the ideas in the face of factual sources, maybe it's possible that one could reconsider those ideas in the face of new evidence?
After all, that's the basis of scientific thinking.
A relevant question here seems to be whether people can realize the difference between criticism and a personal attack.
It seems very common that people can't even talk about systems of inequality because simply mentioning that the status quo is unequal is often viewed as more taboo than actually perpetuating the inequality. e.g., there's no sexism in tech.
For example, when identifying institutional racism or sexism, one can be as scientific with data, but it seems that the mere act of suggesting that inequality even exists is painted as a personal attack.
Being pointed to inequality doesn't necessitate that the individual must assume that they're being attacked.
If someone tells me something, it can often mean that the mere fact they're talking to me at all is that they hope I have the capacity to self-examine and change. There isn't much reason to talk if they didn't think I would change at all. It's up to me if I want to construe it at an attack or an opportunity for learning.
Just like the election, it seems that the standard that each political side is held to is not at parity. Certainly, Hillary lacks charisma however, Trump's offenses and career have been, by a reasonable measure, more egregious than Hillary's; the bar she was held to seemed much higher during the election, yet it seemed there was nothing Trump couldn't do and still be elected. It seems that the disparity of expectations is somewhat generalizable to the larger political groups they represent.
From an outside perspective, the American right can perpetuate inequality, but the American left is barely allowed to talk about inequality.
>Worse, once a sub is made a default, its quantity goes up but its quality goes down.
This seems to be almost universally true for any online community. As a userbase widens, content quality and even social dynamics become diluted to some extent towards a general population baseline.
As a mod of /r/changemyview (153k subscribers), we have discussed opting out of becoming a default sub if we were approached by the reddit admins. We already continuously struggle to maintain sub quality, given 50k subscriber growth in the last 9 months, though we have seen some success with our small set of very well-defined, strict, and heavily enforced rules.
Technologies/Skills: Javascript, jQuery, Ruby on Rails, node.js, Backbone.js, SQL, HAML, SASS, LESS, Program Management, Java, Git
Resume: Full Resume on request.
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, minor in Psychology. 2 years research assistantship developing compsci education application. 1 Year in technology consulting. 2 years web software development at current company working on media-rich web and television applications.
I am a quick learner and excited to work on interesting problems in a wide variety of industries.
>People start throwing link after link of facts
You get upset when people present you with links to facts to respond to your proposed ideas?
I can sympathize that it is definitely no fun if you feel like your ideas aren't getting the attention they deserve, but if you have trouble defending the ideas in the face of factual sources, maybe it's possible that one could reconsider those ideas in the face of new evidence?
After all, that's the basis of scientific thinking.