[rayiner]

The negative reaction isn't because anybody thinks those engineers are being held against their will. It's to avoid the race to the bottom that could happen when some fad-addled PHB decides that nerd labor camps are the latest hot trend.

Mechanisms of social disapproval don't exist because anybody cares overmuch for the choices of a few people. They exist to forestall potential trends.

[yummyfajitas]

Ok - this negative reaction is to prevent others from competing with us in dimensions we can't win on.

Thanks for putting it out in the open so we can discuss it directly.

[rayiner]

I'd say it's more a matter of "preventing others from dragging down society to competing at a level we as a group don't find socially acceptable." This is a legitimate function of society, and opprobrium and derision is a key tool for enforcing social norms that keep a check on undesirable behavior.

[jboy]

Start-ups have been hot-housing like this for years. I have friends who went through YC who did it. PG even suggested in one of his essays "Ever notice how much easier it is to hack at home than at work? So why not make work more like home?" [1]

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html

This is just a scaled-up version of what has already existed for years. The reason it's not more common is because it's logistically difficult to organise. I doubt that difficulty will suddenly decrease. The majority of people will always have families or different lifestyle preferences.

So I'm doubtful that society will be "dragged down" to a point where this is the social norm.

Hence, I think that the opprobrium and derision in this thread is stronger than it needs to be.

[tptacek]

Those are co-founder relationships, which are substantially different from employer-employee relationships.

[yummyfajitas]

Apply your logic to another group which is dragging down society to competing at a level "we" don't find socially acceptable. Yay for slut shaming?

(For the record I don't advocate slut shaming and enjoy the company of promiscuous women. Just pointing out that Rayiner's logic applies equally well here.)

[rayiner]

"Slut shaming" is sexual morality + misogyny and sexism against women. I'd argue that it's the latter elements that make it objectionable. I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with gender-neutral social norms that discourage certain undesirable behaviors in the marketplace for sex and relationships. For example, I'm not one of those people who think prostitution should be legal even when its voluntary and not abusive. I also think its shameful behavior for banks and VCs to be investing in companies like AshleyMadison. Like I said, barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for liberal pluralism.

[yummyfajitas]

Slut shaming need not be sexist - it can merely be sexual morality, or simply the economic "avoiding undesirable competition". Justification for targeting women specifically is quite simple - like employers, they hold "market power".

In any case, I'm glad you honest and intellectually consistent about your views. Sadly it's quite uncommon to see.