Fork me on GitHub

I hate to reopen this conversation, but the idea that "traditionally marginalized" or attending to things like race and gender are concerns only of postmodernists (qua crypto-fascists, no less) is, well, goofy. If nothing else there's actual evidence (not just pomo babble) about the usefulness of demographic diversity in getting better outcomes in a wide array of contexts, there's also actual evidence that people are biased in hiring and other contexts against members of many non white-male groups. This has nothing to do with postmodernism as an intellectual movement (I agree it's dumb) and everything to do with mounds of actual empirical evidence from sociology, psychology, and management


Here's one of the most important studies, from economists, not postmodernist lit crit types.


I don't think any of us argue that that is beneficial, mostly that it's not something around which a union should be formed (among other social change movements)


Discussing "politics" has lower standards of discourse than discussing "jobs." (Logical fallacies are more accepted.) One cost is that people leave and long off-topic debates result.


For example: > The postmodern version ditches the Jesus part and replaces it with Chomsky or Said. is an unsupported claim with no evidence. Lacks persuasiveness. (Turns out that Chomsky argues against "postmodernist cults" and the "angry charges and denunciations" they aim at him. )


So could we strive for a reasonable, respectful level of discourse? Or failing that, have this channel moderated?


Disagree. The discussion was philosophical, not political. It was all relevant to jobs, and specifically to the question of whether software engineers ought to be unionized in order to exert pressure on employers to act more consistently with a particular vision of social justice advocated by postmodernist leftists. The fact that Chomsky himself is not a postmodernist is irrelevant; the comment was about postmodernists, not Chomsky himself. Plenty of supporting evidence is available upon request; however, my interlocutor chose to hurl personal insults at me and then disappear, rather than engage in reasonable discussion.


The conversation was, on my end, was entirely reasonable and respectful, treating the topic in impersonal and objective terms. Disagreeing with someone's views does not, in itself, constitute a lack of respect.


Though the other party's decision to lower the discourse to the level of personal insults and then vanish was indeed disrespectful and mildly annoying, I do not feel that this level of meta-analysis is warranted in this case.


Specifically, scolding us for supposedly failing to be reasonable and respectful, or suggesting channel moderation are both unnecessary.