> Blatant sexism and rasicm against white males might be okay to idiot millennials

This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to introduce classic flamewar topics. This sort of ideological ranting is never interesting, never goes anywhere good, and is plainly off-topic here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

I recommend this read, "White Fragility": http://www.overcomingracism.org/resources/White-Fragility.pd...

I don't think it's fragility to fight against the slightest racist comments. I think it's the way every race should be. Nobody should have to 'endure' racist speech in the news articles they read, that's the goal any race should be striving to achieve. Just because it's not as bad as other hate speech doesn't mean it's not racist.

Why are these off-topic posts in every submission today, did Mozilla sponsor another outreach?

>Since the entire thing is some bizarre attempt to shame white men into stopping the things that make them so enviously successful

What makes white men successful? And where does the article try to get them to stop doing that?

Please don't use throwaways just to violate the guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Did you read the piece?

I did, and it was interesting to see that its author coined such a term 'white fragility'- it is almost as if they were deliberately working to provoke reactions that would reinforce the fundamental thesis of the paper.

There are a lot of assumptions in this paper, and it makes statements based on those assumptions as if they are simply obviously true. It's not terribly well put-together or convincing if you don't initially agree with the statement the author is making, and it feels like it was written solely for the consumption of people who already possess the proper mindset and beliefs.

For example, they take the sourced statement that 'good neighborhood' is coded language for 'white' and then apply that to all things. (Also, I looked into the source for that and it's much more complicated than this paper makes it appear, and does not in fact only mean 'white.')

>The quality of white space being in large part measured via the absence of people of color (and Blacks in particular) is a profound message indeed, one that is deeply internalized and reinforced daily through normalized discourses about good schools and neighborhoods.

I don't agree that this is a daily or normalized discourse. Do you often find yourself talking in veiled terms about how good the schools are in your area?

I also noticed that it was extremely class-biased, effectively linking wealth and race so that they appear to work hand in hand and yet also displaying fundamental misconceptions about what 'normal' is, at least in the US. For example, the author seemed to assume that all white men go to college, when in reality it's closer to 30%.

What's sexist or racist in there? The only thing I see that might qualify is "mansplaining," and it's really mild.

Why is it in the article in the first place?

Why does it matter that Bem is Jewish, or that the people probing for issues in the studies methodology were white men?

Because details are interesting. Bem being Jewish adds some color. That all the people probing for issues were white men is a really interesting remark. Why would that be the case? Are white men particularly skeptical, or more willing to rock the boat? These are legitimate, interesting questions that we'd lose out on if they had omitted that description.

If they are legitimate and interesting questions, why aren't they probed further? They're throwaways.

In the article, describing Bem as a 'gentle Jewish kid from Denver who didn't care for sports' plays on a racial archetype in order to flesh out a character for the reader, but what does it have to do with his potentially fudging his data and changing the replication requirement in social sciences?

We could remove every bit of detail that doesn't directly relate to the conclusion of the article, but that would completely change its character. You seem to be applying newspaper standards to an article that doesn't even attempt to conform to those standards.

I am applying the standards of well written and organized thought to it, which should apply here.

What... isn't okay about this? It's a description of the interviewee, you don't have to agree with it.

It is completely out of place in this article and blatantly stereotyping. Just because some situation happens to fit a trendy topic like "mansplaining white males" doesn't mean it has to be explicitly pointed out.

It's not stereotyping to mention that a particular group of people actually predominantly or entirely consists of a certain race or sex.

I'm not a native English speaker, so I had to look it up, but I think I'm using the word correctly:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stereotype#English - A person who is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

Which requires there to be some set image or type for the person to match. It would be stereotyping if the article was implying that white men are usually mansplaining skeptics or something of that nature. But merely stating the fact that this particularly group was actually all white men isn't stereotyping.

that's actually exactly what stereotyping is. so if you agree with the statement in the article then you must agree with all the other stereotypes out there.

Then you missed the whole point of the article. (SPOILER: The mansplainers were correct).

it's slate, what do you expect. garbage.

Exactly where I stopped too.