I have a website that I once coded for love. I don't want to share details because of my identity, but I loved a distant woman. We had strong affection for each other but at the time the romance wouldn't work for many reasons. The website mirrored something she worked on (similar to a fashion blog, but not that subject - again, identity) and I made this one in a few hours and sent it to her. She loved it.
Three years later, we're together - and couldn't be happier.
This is not usually the case. Initial resume reviews are often done by HR, some algorithm, or at least somebody who is not who you will actually be working with on the day-to-day. It is incredibly difficult to root out all of the biases in the job application process and even automated attempts have failed[1]. It is best to avoid any opportunity for bias to even enter the system. To say that you're okay being rejected from a job due to your appearance because you wouldn't want that job anyway is defeatist and hurts the cause of those who are truly disadvantaged and would very much like to be employed.
This attitude assumes that bias is present only as random individual instances, not consistently across groups. What percentage of jobs are you willing to say that e.g black people should be willing to pass by?
Any time I hear the term "Apple hater" with no justification or reasoning, I can't help but think that person is of the lowest intelligence.
(Or Android hater, or any other tech "hater" for that matter. Why can't we accept that companies do different things without proclaiming ourselves as "haters"?)
The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. [1]
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2]
How does Popper address the staggering power imbalance required to use force to suppress intolerance? Can genuine tolerance ever exist in a society where the strong dictate what is politically correct?
"Tolerance," to me, has a simple definition: whoever uses force first is the one who's intolerant. I'd be curious to know how Popper avoided the same conclusion.
How so? If I don't lift a finger against you (and that includes voting to use government-based force against you), then why is it important for you to control what opinions I can express?
It's not about controlling which opinions you can express, it's about how to react to them. It's possible for both of us to be intolerant without resorting to physical violence or government-based force.
If you express an intolerant opinion, it's important for me to express that I think you're full of shit and why, and that I won't tolerate it, without physically lifting a finger against you, or otherwise trying to destroy your life or well being. That's how and why freedom of speech works. It doesn't indemnify you from the consequences of expressing your opinions.
I am fully justified in expressing my intolerance of your intolerance without resorting to violence. I'm not going to wait for you to go as far as to hit me in the face or spend money on a propaganda campaign that's actively trying to destroy my marriage (for example), before I verbally express my intolerance of something you said or did.
But if you donated to a political campaign that results in destroying my marriage, or if you're the executive director of an organization dedicated to that cause, and I find out that you've been having gay sex orgies on the low down, or cheating on your wife on Ashley Madison, then it's totally justified for me to publicly out you, and if your wife decides to divorce you or FRC decides to fire you upon learning that, then it's between you and them, and what I did was totally justified, no matter how much you feel like playing the victim.
I don't see where we disagree. Like voting for an intolerant political candidate, I'd consider donating to them to be use of force. It's no longer a matter of simple "intolerance" once that happens. At that point I've lifted a finger, so to speak, just as if I'd paid a thug to beat up some gays outside a bar.
Simply expressing verbal support for the candidate, on the other hand, wouldn't be an instance of the use of force.
The passage from Karl Popper you quoted contains the problematic language, "But we should claim the right to suppress (utterances of intolerance) if necessary even by force." That's where an arbitrary exercise of unequal power comes in. Unless Popper is claiming that an external source of morality exists to decide who's allowed to respond to speech with violence and who is not, he's on very shaky philosophical ground.
I'm the hater: I thought they were givens when dealing with "Apple Haters" I can go off the top of my head!
Original Mac replaced the over $10,000 Lisa for a quarter of the price then left the color option off the market for over a year. (My dad was buying the first Mac when the color one comes out ended up with an Amiga).
Amgia: Apple lied about the capabilities of the Amiga. My Amiga 1000 at 7.16 MHz could run an emulator of the MacOS at 7.8336 MHz BOTH on the same 68000 CPU and the Amiga out preformed it in benchmarks. The Mac took many years to catch up to the Amiga. Amiga had analogue colors and Mac had a extremely limited range of colors that were digital.
You ever have to service the old Apple Printers? WOW they were HORRIBLE!
Even worse did you ever have to work with Token Rings?!?!?! I will never be able to read Lord of the Rings without going into a rage about the 1990s networking with these beauts!
The "Pro-Tools" era of Digital audio. Even after the need for proprietary hardware for I/O was over (1998 or so) they continued to sell many many thousands of dollars inputs based on false information provided by Apple.
Lies: No malware or virus. No crashes. - No OS is safe (They even use to suggest that people have an anti-virus program running on OS X on their website) Still today OS X and Apple software crashes all the time on me. Just Sunday a mission critical part of the presentation refused to work till after a hard reboot and re-install of the software.
Litigation as a tool to stop competition.
Present Day: Price Fixing which breaks down the rights of the buyer to have the power and knowledge in purchasing (This is why it is illegag.
Walled garden - I'm an old school Hacker who prefer Linux and open hardware.
Macs life span is so short presently. Apple doesn't even tell you what the life span of their OS releases will be (Unless that changed recently)
30% commission on apps, books and well everyone's work. This causes Apple (Google also guilty of this) to make more off of people's work then the creators do. This is part of the reason why we had the EBook price fixing issue.
OS X and Apple Software UI is very limiting and causes me to go mad trying to remember what the "Apple Way" is. My biggest pet peeve is Final Cut does not have a Render for the longest time. I had to always go search for the way to just pre-render and final render video projects to export. This made me look silly BUT Final Cut added render as an actual term a few years ago. Render was the technical word for all video editing EXCEPT Final Cut!
I could go on for much more and I am sure you disagree with all of it, but to say someone disagrees with something you prefer as being unintelligent just means you have your own bias that allow you to believe you are smarter due to your preferences.
They want developers to go against their best interests and only develop apps for a very small portion of users. They don't want to compete fairly with developers, making some capabilities inaccessible to developers while keeping them accessible to themselves. If you as a developer are ok with this, it must be some kind of stockholm syndrome.
To be afraid of being "judged" for your relatively tame and objective comments speaks volumes about the state of our increasingly polarized culture.