The only exception I can think of is concerning the holocaust.
EDIT: Anyway, I can recommend anyone to live in another culture for some time in their life. First you will feel alienated or even offended by many of the things you hear and see. However if you look deep enough (and many people don't) you will understand that neither your culture nor theirs is right.
On the other hand, Danes can come across as rather crass about some subjects, especially race.
> suggesting that abortion should be illegal, which is a mainstream position in the USA, is such a crazy-far-right position in Denmark
Personally I think Americans are spoiled.
In Romania under Ceausescu (so before 1989) abortions were illegal. Hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of women (in a country with a population of less than 19 millions) ended up doing illegal abortions under unhealthy, unsanitary conditions. Many of them had health issues because of that, thousands died or were prosecuted for it.
Many of the women that didn't manage to get an abortion, ended up with unwanted children. Conditions were tough as we were living with harsh austerity measures, many of these parents barely had enough money to put food on the table, many of these children grew up in families that didn't want them, many of these unwanted children were given up for adoption, filling the streets with beggars.
Abortions may be murder, but making them illegal is also murder.
If you are interested in what happens when abortions are made illegal, there's a good documentary movie about what happened in Romania. Search for "Copiii lui Ceausescu" (in translation "Ceausescu's Children")
There were 193,491 legal abortions in the US in 1970. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state matter, and the lines were being drawn in fairly predictable ways based on the right/left state-makeup of the time.
I do appreciate the correction, though I'd have appreciated it more in a more constructive tone.
For me, it was just normal boytalk sharing personal preferences for small or big female body parts, for them it was as exciting as leaking out of school to smoke a cigarette.
I think it goes deeper than that. A remarkable well-documented(#) fact in the history of sexual life is that sexual perversions were much worse in places where sex was considered a sin (eg. the West), than in places were it was considered natural (eg. China).
I am really concerned that, after a while, the sexual PC pressure could backfire in North America. We all know how "Hell is paved", right?
(#) http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Life-Ancient-China-Gulik/dp/B00...
As for sexual perversions being worse where sex is considered a sin, that makes a lot of sense. Japan would be a great example: genitals are censored, yet they make some of the weirdest most perverse porn one can think of.
Thinking about it I'm regularly seeing kids aged 13 or 14 smoking cigarettes in front of their schools in Paris. French people have a special ability to free themself from the rules.
LOL! Although the Western Hemisphere is a big place, and North and South America comprise a lot of countries, I can assure you, in standard English, and fair or not, "an American" === "a United States citizen".
I think perhaps the confusion here is due to the fact that the Irish don't see themselves as being divided according to the French tradition of left and right, but according to which side of the civil war they think was right.
It's perhaps instructive to note that the people and organisations that oppose abortion in Ireland today are often the same ones that supported Franco's rebellion during the Spanish civil war and that both things were supported for the same reason: catholicism. The Irish right wing has more in common with the right wing in the rest of Europe than it gets credit for.
This is a very valuable piece of data!
Despite all that's great about PG's essay: Funny is not an oracle of universal good! Humor is wonderful. It's universal. It's tremendously important, but it does not make you right, and it is not license to do and say whatever you want.
Rationality is wonderful. It's universal and tremendously useful. But we all know that just because a human is applying rationality, that doesn't men she/he is necessarily right. Likewise, what tickles your own funny bone might not tickle someone else's. Humor and rationality are universal. Your own POV and your own application of those are human and flawed.
Funny is not an oracle for all that's good. Most of the time, humor is an orthogonal area of concern. It does not make one righteous, and it's very unlikely that someone failing to be funny gives one an excuse to be self-righteous.
Well, obviously as this is an extreme far right position (I'm american living in Europe and I realize this...).
And banning abortion is tantamount to signing the death warrant on hundreds of young, confused, scared women. So, yeah, these are considered extreme views, because they're extreme.
I remember an incident whilst we were walking to lunch, a guy came out of a parking lot with squealing tires... which made me say my most crude comment while I was working there: "Someone is on their period". Sure, I generalised women with that joke, but I didn't mean anything by saying it (just that he was probably cranky..) - it's a joke, the girl I was with could of equally said, "I'm sure that dude has a small penis." I have a regular non-12" cock (I'm not ashamed to admit that) and I wouldn't of been offended. But her comment was, "SAMMM! That's not very PC!". The guy I was with commented, "Ahh, dude, not PC man". All said and done, they were fun people to work with and didn't make a big deal out of it besides commenting, not pc.
Comedians always generalise, and making jokes that are in context with a current situation isn't weird. Come on, loosen up, life is boring when you are forced to only say serious things... We spend most of our lives working. Why should we be forced to spend most of our lives being boring whilst hiding our personality?
This is actually one of the top reasons I'd be afraid of working in the USA again. I don't want to get fired or sued over "sexual harassment" due to a comment like the one I mentioned earlier. That, and the fact that if I'd get fired, I'd have to leave the country within a week...
I do agree, that making a joke specifically about a person you work with, or are in a room with is a big no-no - well, if it's harsh. A meaningless non degrading joke is fine which isn't meant in a serious way. But don't make jokes about people you're with regarding their sex life. People are touchy about that and I can understand. General sex jokes that don't degrade a certain sex? Fine!
In my books, although I find it funny and mean nothing by it, I wouldnt say the following in a work environment: "I have an appointment to get a facial, I'll be back later." - "Lol! Tell him not to get some in your eye!"
Now, living in South Florida, it's almost the same environment. But, except for a few neighborhoods in Miami, most consider South Florida to be a borough of NYC.
Sort of. You'll learn a lot about a different culture and you'll learn a lot about the one you were raised in. You also will learn that, in some ways, neither your culture nor the new one is right, that in other areas the new culture is better, and in still others yours is.
I also think it's strange to see how you try to protect TV viewers from nipples and the "F-word".
It's not surprising that it produces people like AR who thinks any offence is worth fighting.
As for 3-strikes and "zero tolerance" that's a whole other can of worms. Looking at the disparity in US crime statistics vs Scandinavian countries, it's pretty understandable that cultural attitudes toward legal punishment are so different. 3-strikes and "zero tolerance" are wrong headed and ineffective, in my view, but you can at least empathize with the motivation (as opposed to the whole nipple thing)
Oddly though, Showtime for example sometimes air soft-core porn late a night. And while tits and ass are bouncing everywhere I have yet to see the "money shots". Male or female.
Technology is still defective, but it's less-so than most other industries.
The difference, and the reason there are fewer women in technology than the more defective culture of banking, is that technology's appeal is to risk-seekers and idealists... who tend in this particular context, for a variety of (probably cultural) reasons, to be men.
To the extent that technology has problems, most of that comes from tech executives who swoop in to take advantage of idealistic (and socially awkward) tech people, then encourage an imbalanced and nasty culture.
>It's designed in a way that makes it very difficult for women to fit in, in any stable and reliable way. Additionally
You can't just make a statement, not provide evidence, and then say "additionally...". You haven't proven your first point.
What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on?
And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in?
>the reason there are fewer women in technology than the more defective culture of banking, is that technology's appeal is to risk-seekers and idealists
This is such a ridiculous claim I don't even know where to begin. First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology. And further the proportion of people who are taking risks in finance is MUCH higher than the proportion who are taking risks in technology. There's only one founder per company in tech; there are 100 traders for every founder in a bank.
>To the extent that technology has problems, most of that comes from tech executives who swoop in to take advantage of idealistic (and socially awkward) tech people, then encourage an imbalanced and nasty culture.
Take advantage HOW?
And HOW does that create the problems we're currently seeing in tech?
I don't like the way you speak in platitudes. Completely devoid of content. I don't know who you are, I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth.
Wow. After reading both of your contributions to this thread you stand our far more as the troll to my eyes.
>What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on?
Are you seriously saying "white-collar work culture" isn't sexist?
Pop quiz: how many female CEOs are there in the fortune 100? If you're guess was closer to 8 (the actual number) than 50 would you mind explaining why you would guess that?
>The calculated harnessing of risk.
You're talking about over all risk, he was talking about personal risk of which trading has very little compared to other career options.
>Take advantage HOW?
Must one recount the total sum of all knowledge in every post for you? It's pretty well established how and why tech people are exploited. If you haven't been keeping up then that's your responsibility to educate yourself. Not every poster from now until the sun burns out to keep reiterating our collective accumulated knowledge and experience.
You know what's sexist? Assuming that a certain demographic makeup for a role in an industry is makes the culture sexist. The fact that 8% of F100 CEOs are male doesn't indicate sexism without further evidence, just like the fact that only 5% of nurses are male[1] doesn't indicate sexism without further evidence. Where is your further evidence?
And BTW, it's "your", not "you're".
> It's pretty well established how and why tech people are exploited
No it isn't. Nobody even agrees on what constitutes exploitation. I'm not satisfied with the intellectual laziness you're advocating for, sorry.
[1] - http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics
Only one? I have, like, at least five or six, my friend.
What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on? And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in?
Dedication and ability are assessed, in most corporations, based on antiquated, counterproductive, and fascistic reliability measures that disfavor, for one example, taking maternity (or paternity) leave or dedicating substantial energy to childcare. For a variety of reasons, some cultural, reproduction and child-raising ends up taking more of a woman's time than a man's.
It's almost impossible to take 5 years out of the career game and come back in with the standing you had when you left. While that's not sexist per se, it's incredibly fucking inhumane, and happens to inflict more harm on women.
First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology.
Oh, come on. You really think making $250,000 plus commission is "risky"? Yes, if you have a bad year and the firm isn't doing well, you might get fired. Here, "fired" means you get a shit bonus, and 4 months to find another job, usually a promotion. Yeah, that's risk all right.
I know enough about finance to know what I'm talking about here. I'm not denigrating financial professionals. I've worked in a few Wall Street jobs, and liked most of the people. But it's not risky to work there. Risk (with others' funds) is part of the operational calculus but it's not personally risky to be an employee.
Sure, there's financial risk (again, with others' money) involved, but you have much bigger risks as a technology founder. Like losing your savings (bootstrapping failure) or risking 3 years of your career on something that turns into a no-name dud. Or you could do a great job, get screwed over by partners or investors or management, get fired with no severance and your stock diluted in some perverse way. Shit like that happens.
Playing games with other peoples' money (and getting a resume/credibility boost no matter what happens) isn't nearly as risky as putting 3 years of your life into something that might wreck your career for reasons that aren't your fault.
Take advantage HOW?
There's a set of very talented people who have no sense of their real worth, crappy negotiation skills, and an idealistic willingness to work long hours. Most of VC-istan is about turning them into pure gold for well-connected investors and useless executive implants (read: VCs' well-connected, underachieving friends). Who do you think is paying $2 million for small houses in Silicon Valley? Not programmers with their 0.03% slices of things that got beaten to shit by multiple liquidation preferences.
I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth.
Good for you.
>Dedication and ability are assessed, in most corporations, based on antiquated, counterproductive, and fascistic reliability measures that disfavor, for one example, taking maternity (or paternity) leave or dedicating substantial energy to childcare
White-collar work inherently discriminates against women because they could possibly get pregnant. Is this what you are saying?
>You really think making $250,000 plus commission is "risky"
Yes, that is why people are hired at such high salaries. Because they do well for a couple of years and then flame out, never to work in the industry again. Again, you are clearly far removed from the industry so I don't fault you for not knowing how compensation works in said industry. But it isn't like you're walking into a golden ticket. If you don't meet bar, you don't get your bonus, which is more often than not the bulk of your "salary". And then you get canned. No remorse. that is risk.
>it's not personally risky to be an employee.
I don't understand how you can say this if you've actually worked for Wall Street firms.
>Like losing your savings (bootstrapping failure)
Smart founders don't tap their savings dry on an unsure bet.
>Playing games with other peoples' money (and getting a resume/credibility boost no matter what happens) isn't nearly as risky as putting 3 years of your life into something that might wreck your career for reasons that aren't your fault.
Except that it is way MORE risky. If you start a company and fail, at least you can say "I started a company and failed" and the Silicon Valley Brigade will give you a job as a Rails programmer. If you fail slinging options, you're never working in that field again. Literally.
I agree with your assessment of VCistan, now that you've expanded on it.
Haha, this happened to me exactly. I didn't even know Ruby. Or Rails!
>White-collar work inherently discriminates against women because they could possibly get pregnant. Is this what you are saying?
I think what he's saying is, actual experience is worthless. The person that has performed an action 100 times is exactly as qualified as the person that has performed it 10,000 times.
Whether you were coding (or doing open heart surgery) for 20% vs 80% of the last 5 years is not relevant. If you have a computer science degree, or a medical degree, that is what really matters. The entire concept of estimating ability based on whether you have actually written a significant amount of code, or have actually performed a significant amount of medical operations, is a flawed concept.
I think that's the essence of what he's saying.
Personally, though, I wouldn't want to be a trader. Quant is as close to that game as I'd want to go. I've seen what traders do and it doesn't look fun. It's not professionally risky, but it's still very stressful. I'll give you that.
Sure, you can get another job after a failed startup, but usually as a subordinate, and that's viewed as dishonorable after 35 and untenable past 40. If you fail as a derivatives trader, VC-istan will let you be a founder. Sure, you're going from $250k plus a possible 1000% bonus to $200k and 15% of a startup. Again, my heart bleeds.
This is not good, I agree with that, but how can it be different? After 5 years off, your lost track of everything that happened, you're 5 years older and 5 years rustier, and, most importantly, somebody else took care of those things you were taking care of - you're not needed as you were when you took off. Now, in big impersonal bureaucracies, this can be not so big a problem, but in most places it is.
IMHO the solution to the actual problem can't be in just saying "that's not a problem, it only is because of sexism/tradition/whatever". By the way, I don't have a solution.
Changing the subject a bit...
Having been a trader, I think that's a major problem with our system. A trader today rarely has his own skin in the game. Or even the firms skin in most cases. It's hella easier to make VERY risky bets with other people money.
I couldn't hire someone who had five years without any practice in their trade to most of the positions I hire for.
You seem to be implying that I shouldn't even be considering that in the past 5 years, between two applicants, one has been in the trade, practicing and producing work, and the other hasn't.
That different life choices have different outcomes isn't sexist.
The entire industry is based on a business model which only a monkey could fuck up, yet the industry manages to fuck it up (as Taleb writes).
You do realize that all these risk computation are totally bogus and led to big trouble in 2008 right?
And that there's no risk because when the shit hit the fan bankster simply go say they're too big too fail and get bailed out.
And at that point they're effectively on life support and, still as Taleb is saying it, they should shut the fuck up.
Don't talk about risk when the only risk is being bailed out by public money once you, of course, miscomputed the risk.
Wanna talk about all the banks in the eurozone that needed a bail out in the recent years since Greece defaulted because they didn't correctly analyze the Greece state default risk?
Hint: it's far from over and far more fucked up than most people think and more banks will be bailed out again with public money (starting with Cyprus right now).
Yet in 1999 economists did warn about precisely that: about the euro that would lead to both Spain and Greece doing state default. Who listened?
Where in the financial world did anyone listen to that and take that risk into account? Nowhere.
Nobody.
Because public money is always here to bail out.
So please stop telling us there's risk. It's all a freakin' broken model and the entire financial system ain't there to provide liquidity anymore: it's become something out of control trying to shift as much money around as possible in order to generate as much "rake" as possible.
And if these monkeys didn't even correctly manage the risk on something as essential as state debt, when having all the information available to correctly compute such a risk (including warning from economists that defaults would be coming), what makes you think they'd be able to compute the risk on more complicated products, like CDS and all the crazy stuff that this industry simply makes up in order to take a bigger rake on all the money shifted around?
It's a bunch of quants who've lost it: they're out of touch with the real world and can't understand something as basic as the inevitability of a state defaulting when facing the facts.
And you're trying to tell us that they know what taking risk is?
Risk is entrepreneurs putting their personal belongings on the line. Not a bunch of sick gamblers using broken models to try to generate more and more money with the public money that is keeping their employers alive.
"The black swan" is a pretty good book. Of course it's not "nice" towards people like you. Sadly he was right and predicted correctly what would happen, contrarily to all the supposedly "risk takers" you seem to be so fond of because they'd be taking such amazing risks.
Business sociopathy is a complex topic but the essence of it can be summed up in 6 words: Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.
My limited time in Europe suggests that European culture on the whole is less attentive on this subject as well. Rather notable lapses in that category also occasionally make HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3975588) but usually it somehow avoids the radar, perhaps due to Europe otherwise having a reputation as progressive/liberal.