Do you think that someone with racist beliefs is incapable of having legitimate opinions on unrelated things? Or that it makes them a monster worth shunning altogether?
If this was a discussion about his Uber article, then I think it would be entirely on point to suggest that he appears to have a biased view that may call into question his conclusions.
I went and read that article since you mentioned it, and I thought it was halfway interesting. Controversial, opinionated, unfair to some Muslims for sure, but he did raise some legitimate points. Shouting him down as racist would be easy, but I think the cultural questions are very legitimate in the modern, diverse world we live in. Even if they're uncomfortable.
Plus, the point nearer the end sounds very legitimate on it's face. Is it true that there are a fleet of really nice cars being driven by people who seem unlikely to be granted the funds to buy them, and then used for ride sharing? If that is in fact true, it would indeed be good to know why. I'd argue that the economics of Uber should make organized crime uninterested, but maybe I'm very wrong.
> Do you think that someone with racist beliefs is incapable of having legitimate opinions on unrelated things? Or that it makes them a monster worth shunning altogether?
Exactly. Take what you like from what they wrote, skip the rest. These constant attempts to mark people as good or evil with no in-between disturbs me greatly. It's possible for a racist to change their stripes. I know because I did it. I grew up in a household that was otherwise normal but my dad had very racist views against blacks. I had normalized that growing up, and over time I managed to change it. It helped that the first African American I ever met turned out to be one of the most interesting people I had ever met.
It's possible for a racist to actually have important things to say on topics other than race. It's possible a person with racist views is otherwise a good person, they just need to work on themselves a little more. And, sure, it's possible they will never move past it or worse will let it consume them. Life isn't simple.
"These constant attempts to mark people as good or evil with no in-between disturbs me greatly. "
Interestingly, what you describe is the sort of black and white thinking that the author does, in the article about motivation/discipline as well as the article on Muslim Uber drivers. They are both sort of ranty, and show a lack of empathy toward people who aren't like the author. In that sense think the racist article is very helpful in taking in the first one.
The article itself isn't helpful to those of us who struggle with productivity issues -- well, at least not this one. I know the situations I do well in and I know the situations I do poorly at. I've been both the proverbial "rock star" developer who had a ton of highly prominent contributions, and I've been the one who got fired for missing deadline after deadline after constantly overestimation my ability to crank out code like I'm in a job interview. I know how hard a thing it is to get the balance right so I stay productive. This article does very little except make me feel bad about myself.
Set aside the question of marking people as good or evil.
Would you recommend that article (the one about motivation) to someone you know? Would you include a warning about the other content on the blog? Would you send it to a young person? If you were putting it on your own blog what would you write about it?
I would probably let people know the author's sense of humor is "edgy" but that the article itself is good. YMMV. I wouldn't recommend it to a young person because of the remarks the author made around the idea of "graduality".
I think that there are lots of really nice people in this world some of whom write really interesting things. I think that someone who writes racist things is capable of having good opinions on other things. But why would I bother with reading them when I can see that the author is happy to publish things that I think are abhorrent. So yeah I think that's equivalent to shunning them. I just don't want to waste my time reading an article sense checking every phrase and fact like it's a PR for a critical module in the code base.
When someone tells you who they are then believe them.
>> Or that it makes them a monster worth shunning altogether?
Yes. Absolutely. There are some ideas that are innately perverse to the point that they should have no place in civil society. I won't support the government banning them, because the government can't be trusted with such power, but not only will I shun people who hold such ideas, but I'll judge and become much more suspicious of people who tolerate those people.
Having one idea is rarely orthogonal to having another. There is a heavy correlation, for example, between holding the idea "some races are better than others" with the idea "some genders are better than others" and "a small subset of society has a divine right to rule over the rest". If they hold such ideas so strongly they feel the need to share it with the rest of the world, rather than rightfully feeling ashamed, then they're probably beyond the point of deprogramming, and for the greater good should be pushed away from the rest of society.
Not all heroes wear capes. What happens if during your eager vigilante efforts you call out somebody wrongly? Do we get to call you out? Or as as a self appointed racism batman you absolve yourself of any false positives?
