This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought when he shut the thread down then that might explain part of the outcry.
The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business.
This still isn't "cause and effect", where anyone who chuckles at a funny name is fated to be building the next Stormfront unless stopped by an intrepid band of culture warriors. But we've known since Ben Franklin that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, so under the 'pyramid of hate' argument, a company trying to foster a safe workplace for all workers should strive to keep potential racism from turning into a problem by enforcing standards of workplace conduct that don't wait for actual racism.
Just like we build secure software by building security in early into the release process.
Just like we build functional and well-integrated software by building the testing early into the release process.
Just like we avoid pest infestation by keeping the food off of the tables and floors. On and on it goes.
The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRQBtDtZTGA
This is just a rehash of broken-windows theory, whether its proponents know it or not. The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there.
There is zero evidence behind the “pyramid of hate” — it makes a shallow kind of sense, but has no basis in the real world. An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what this kind of hysteria promotes.
Utilization of the pyramid of hate in this way makes me feel like it's just a retroactive justification of hypersensitive behavior amongst overly fragile employees. Honestly a lot of times it's not even hypersensitivity so much is just overt paranoia.
You're on the money about encouraging people to form their identities around these characteristics.
Instead of having a conversation about excessive police militarization and police brutality directed at all American citizens we had it around one group. In the US 75% of the people killed by police each year are not black and nobody knows their names because the media has caused Americans to think that it's a issue unique to, rather than disproportionate for black Americans.
Instead of having a unifying and inclusive movement for police reform we got a politically weaponized racially polarizing movement.
Yep. Watching (unarmed, white) Daniel Shaver weeping and begging for his life as he crawled on his hands and knees down the hallway before officer Philip Brailsford executed him with a spray of bullets — that was as clear-cut a case as you could get that the police in many districts are NOT policing their own as much as they should. In many ways, there is a straight line from Brailsford to Chauvin: a cop with lots of citizen complaints and a bad attitude ends up killing someone who didn’t need to die. Race, even when it is a factor, is an unnecessary distraction from the bigger picture.
Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' (see: Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) to desensitize people to hatred towards the Tutsis is well documented.
It was unpopular to speak out against this sort of thing, and certainly was something that got worse over time.
Further, racial violence in the Americas didn't start with jokes either, it started with the genocide the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and continued with the trans-Atlantic slave trade ...
Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgian colonists literally preferring one group over the other. Raising animosity between two groups of essentially genetically same people.
Hutus used the identity cards colonists left to target their purges.
I'd say those influenced genocide way, way more, than some radio jokes.
Edit: I think it's easier to believe that if we didn't make a jokes here and there we could have prevented an atrocity. It's an easy and quick solution to a complex question.
I think the situation was way more messy and way more muddy. Jokes didn't help but stopping them wouldn't have stopped the genocide.
It's fair to at least 'talk about' the 'pyramid of hate' and maybe 'believe in it' so as to 'make a point'.
But I don't think it's ok to accuse regular, well-meaning employers of 'holding up systems of White Supremacy'.
It's also basically tone-deaf for an executive, facing a 'sensitive moment' to challenge claims of racism with 'reverse racism' - even if the executive might have a rhetorical point - it's just going to inflame the situation.
I think the execs should have basically 'not acted out of contempt', said some conciliatory things and moved on. Even if they had a legit point to make, they're supposed to be 'bigger than that'.
So I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to dig into the rhetoric, but rather, they should have just found a way past the issue.
Finally, it's a good example of how toxic this stuff can be.
When you get sucked in by a US-centric ideology that is almost entirely based out of US universities you get these glaring holes in these theories that don't make sense as soon as you move them to another country.
Explain to me why this movement hasn't caught on in Brazil? Or any of the other numerous South American countries which were huge destinations for African slaves? I don't see this crap happening in Columbia.
This is all just elite overproduction with a bunch of professors who 40 years ago still thought communism was a great idea indoctrinating kids who have a naturally conformist mindset.
Google and Amazon can afford to have this crap but startups can't and that's why you're seeing it evaporate from the small companies first. Let the unproductive all talk no walk poser engineers obsess about this instead of writing code. The rest of us will get to work somewhere else.
This is a gross misrepresentation of events.
They were colonized by European countries, who imported African slaves, to work alongside the SAmerican slaves for their economic exploitation.
Where did they come from? Europe.
The elite/exploiters are never the majority, in fact, they kind of need to stay “tiny”. That’s how power and leverage work, and even the concept of scalability in capitalism.
And they were made in the context of a general propaganda/hate campaign. The medium is the same, the context couldn't be more different.
It's the context that matters 100%, not the medium (jokes in this case) in and of themselves.
Context and details matter a lot. A joke about "niggaz in da hood" by a white person is very inappropriate and insensitive, but it's not the same as some joke where the punchline is that "niggaz too lazy to work" or whatnot. The second does express hatred, the first doesn't, in spite of being misguided.
This is essentially the same argument as {comics,music,TV,films,games} causes {Satanism,murder,drug use,what-have-you}.
Well no shit. But it did happen, and there's plenty of proof that 'jokes' contributed to the culture that made genocide possible
> A joke about "niggaz in da hood" by a white person is very inappropriate and insensitive, but it's not the same as some joke where the punchline is that "niggaz too lazy to work" or whatnot
You really don't think that the first desensitizes some to the point that they think the 2nd is acceptable?? This is what the pyramid is about.
> This is essentially the same argument as {comics,music,TV,films,games} causes {Satanism,murder,drug use,what-have-you}.
No it's not.
No, why should it? It seems to me that the difference is extremely clear for everyone. Is there any good argument beyond "but it obviously does!" – or even better, research – which demonstrates that it does?
You are just refuting what I'm saying without any actual arguments.
Surely you mean Rwanda?
This definition was invented by Nazi Germany and led to countless horrors, are you sure you want to continue to use it?
I'm sorry - I need help in understanding how this "equally valid". To me this seems like a justification ex post facto to defend "jokes", but it seems to fly in the face history. I find it hard to reconcile that post-slavery attitudes about race in America came about because people were no longer allowed to make jokes. Alternatively this kind of explanation hand waves away the cultural history that makes those jokes funny in the first place.
To note, I believe that DHH handled this situation horribly which has caused the situation to escalate to epic proportions. The adult thing to do when you come across a rather juvenile list of "funny" names to accept that you were wrong and move on. To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup.
This is exactly what he did.
> To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup.
He didn’t try to defend the list he just didn’t believe the idea that this list had some sorta deep seated root in racism. There were just as many “funny” Anglo/European names as Asian/African/etc from what I understand. He called out ppl trying to act self righteous when they themselves participated in the list making in the recent past and said this list is not proof of deep-seated racism in the company. That wasn’t good enough for the activists so they revolted.
ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.
On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?
The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide.
Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
Offensive jokes are very highly context sensitive.
People can be offended very, some may argue too, easily.
Other people are very difficult to offend.
Hard to know.
Humanizing the field of play can do a whole lot of good. Can get people talking in real terms and being OK on those terms.
An overly fenced field of play can see building of tension despite the very best intent.
There can be solidarity in all that. Just being people, same as any people is often solid grounding.
Atrocities are harder in such a scenario. Everyone is more human, do unto others makes more sense when the others are similar, humans, wanting, needing similar things, running in similar ways.
"Those other people" can often be the start of something really ugly, depending on just what gets attached to "other."
We are as offended as we think we are. I am not marginalizing it at all! Being uber offended sucks.
But, we do have options. We do manage our response to others. We do have control over how we see others, can relate to them, see it from their view.
Humor is one of the more powerful ways to do that. It can bridge gaps, open doors, humanize others, make the very ugly, foul, something that does not own us.
We have to be careful with "openly" and "offensive."
The subset of expression sure to not offend is quite small.
The scope of possible good, or at the least not nefarious intent is just as large.
Both hypotheses are extremely difficult to prove or disprove and most likely, neither is strictly true. Human society is complicated / varied and I find it quite possible that there are times where hatred progressed both directions on that pyramid. There are also probably times where good natured blowing of of steam help prevent difficult situations from devolving and times where it inflamed hatred.
I don't understand what would make one theory "ex post facto" and the other not since both have similar temporal positioning...
But I don't think the point was to justify the jokes, I think the point was to call into question the epistemic justifications.
> To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior
What defense was offered? This list was openly acknowledged as unprofessional, inappropriate, and something that should have been caught sooner.
The concern was that some of these “funny names” were based on laughing at other people’s race, national origin, etc. That’s the opposite of promoting it.
Umm, isn't the notion that catharsis is an effective method of anger reduction also at best controversial?
Aren't you (or whoever makes these claims) purposely stopping the "pyramid of hate" where you see fit? You could go on and say "people who joke", "people who talk", "people who meet". You just set the bar where you find a culprit/cause you are willing to demonize, as if it was that clear cut
My friend, I truly wish interpersonal interaction were 'clear cut', but that is not how things work. And merely wishing that things worked this way does not make it so.
If this is such a common path, why have I never heard of it happening?
How common is this chain of events? What are some documented cases?
Funny. That's the same thing the right-wingers are saying.
> Just like we avoid pest infestation
Well that's a nice phrase for a discussion of genocide.
Your wording seems to have an unstated but implied meaning to it, but I am not getting what it is.
Could you explain the implied meaning if you intended one?
In mind, there plenty of other good reasons to promote good workplace conduct and prohibit racist speech.
I like to do the "Muslim test" on these things: replace "white people" (or "men", or any other group) with "Muslims" and see how it sounds then. If it sounds yikes then it's probably not a good thing to say.
I use "Muslim" because there's been a lot of discussion surrounding that in my own country, but you can use "Jew", "black", etc. as well.
It's easy to forget how sweeping statements can be received by its targets. I think we've all been guilty of this sometimes. The only time I've ever had a HN comment moderated is when I made some overly general statements about British culture. Mea culpa.
It's only natural to make mistakes, and that's okay. The difference is that I've apologized for it and realized my mistake, rather than double down hard (in my defence, as an EU expat living in the UK at the time, I was rather ... peeved ... about Brexit at the time, the surrounding debate regarding EU migrants, and various people ranting to me about this, as were most of my EU expat friends).
I vote things like the Green party and Socialist party, and the only time I've been directly involved in political activism was to campaign in favour of an asylum centre in my home town after idiots started opposing it with all sorts of bullshit. It's perhaps a bit said that this needs to be said, but I'm hardly some alt-right troll. But I find the messaging on these kind of things increasingly tiresome and frankly toxic.
As for the issue with Muslims, people actually do hate the religion more than the race. People have no issue with non-Muslim Arabs or northern Africans, they mostly dislike Muslims even white ones.
Why do you feel the need to justify one over the other?
I can choose to be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religion. I can't choose to be black or white, or Asian or European.
Criticising people for their ethnicity is essentially always wrong. There is very little – if any – nuance that applies here.
Criticising religion is a lot more nuanced though; for example I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Matthew 25, where Jesus says that "A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Christians who believe this either (many don't, but some do).
It gets a bit more murky if you start criticising the entire religion on the whole for containing this sort of stuff. Personally I feel that's unfair, but I don't think it's "hateful" either as it's still criticising ideas rather than people.
And it's of course bad if you start criticising people on only being adherents to a religion, without any nuance or recognition of the many different interpretations. But even then, you're still disliking people for ideas they hold and are free to choose, rather than attributes beyond their control. So while still bad, I'd consider it "less bad".
1) Jesus did not say this, Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ did. 2) This is not from Matthew 25 but from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and is one of Paul's letters to Timothy. https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12 3) Matthew 25 consists of the parable of the ten virgins, parable of the tenants and the judgement of God. https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Matthew+25
If you're going to use the Bible to make a point, at least make the effort to accurately do so.
You're talking about criticising with arguments (using Christianity and a quote). The arguments may be bunk (taking a quote out of context - something that happens all too often amongst Islamophobes), or it may be spot on.
There's a world of difference there.
Exactly. Our lack of education and portrayal by media has basically informed the West that Arabs are Muslims and are synonymous!
Groups of people are comprised individuals, with large degrees of variation in any group. Using averages can be important for some things, but context and nuance matters a lot. Not every white person "holds most of the wealth and power". Most don't have any. Perhaps it increases you chances of acquiring wealth or power, but that's a completely different thing than supposedly holding it just because of some "membership" based on ethnicity, religion, sex, or anything else.
This is such a narrow view of the world; undoubtedly it makes sense if you're raised in some urban middle-class family, but a lot of white people's experiences are vastly different from that, and not only are these experiences ignored, they're met with strong hostility. Why do you think rural US, often impoverished white communities who certainly didn't get the best deal, are so hostile to all this kind of stuff? Hell, even "racism" (for lack of a better term) is a thing, "three nippled inbred cousin fucker from Alabama" and all that.
So no, it's not the same thing. Because context matters and who is saying it to whom matters.
If you get jumped by several guys from an oppressed group at that moment in time and in that place they have a lot more power than you do. Just like in code that context exist within the broader global context where you correctly point out that there are power differentials.
I also grew up in the south like you did but I grew up in a trailer park. Kids like you with houses on the bus made fun of kids getting on from the trailer park.
My point is that socioeconomic status is dramatically more predictive of failure or success in the United States than race is. Geographic location is also a huge predictor. If we're going to reduce things down to one dimension we should focus on class.
But it's still "punching", whether it's punching "up", "down", or "side-ways" doesn't strike me as especially important. Maybe "punching down" is "more bad", but IMHO both are bad and we shouldn't do either. Yet it's still not only commonly done, but also socially accepted. "stop whining, it's not as bad as [..]" doesn't make it okay (not what you said, but some people have, indeed, this is essentially what the entire "#NotAllMen" meme is).
I mention this because it's another dimension of context which gets badly overlooked when people discuss divisive issues that are dependent on specific places and histories.
Yet if you drove through my hometown, the chances of whether you'd have an encounter with a police officer would depend on the color of your skin and the type of car you drive. And store surveillance watches people closer depending on the shade of their skin. And local jobs are gotten depending on who you know, which is a fun way of saying "operators hire the children of friends, and white folks hang out with white folks."
So you say you aren't privileged, but there sure does seem to be a hell of a lot white privilege floating around despite your protest to the contrary.
Oh, but you say "what about the inbred cousin fuckers?"
Racial minorities get discriminated against before you know where they're from. It's why prejudice is a problem, but racism is systemic by default.
Who wins with this? No one wins, no one has anything to gain. It's just venting and only breeds resentment. People turn this in to a "I'm oppressed more! No I'm oppressed more!" contest. That leads to nothing good. Accepting that racism exists, is bad, and should be addressed _and_ opposing this kind of stuff are not mutually exclusive. I think it's entirely consistent with the values of treating people as individuals.
When all messaging is race-focused and people are constantly antagonizing against a certain group, then don't be surprised if people, especially lesser advantaged ones, will feel left out, and that's not even all that unreasonable.
You don't empower a group of people by kicking at another of people group.
People talk about "white privilege" as if that's somehow a problem. It's not; it's how everyone should be treated. That this doesn't happen is horrible, but I resent this usage of "white privilege" that almost tries to to guilt me for being treated with decency, or is being used to dismiss the very real problems and challenges people of all backgrounds are facing (including white people).
Congratulations, you hit the white supremacy apologia trifecta.
You could have scored bonus points if you had also included "not all white people" in your reply.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that we have civil rights movements in the first place is because the state and corporations DO NOT "treat people as individuals?" Maybe you haven't noticed, but this is why people are pissed off in this day and age. It's why they have these discussions, and it's why they aren't willing to just ignore casual racism in the workplace.
Discussing factual information is not "kicking at another group of people." You can have ALL of your feelings hurt for all I care if it means that people aren't getting targeted by cops and harassed by store employees for the crime of being black and existing in society. White folks have been resenting discussing the problem of systemic racism and the role they play in it since Reconstruction. People are done tiptoeing around the issue so you can feel good about yourself and pretend everything is fine.
You crossed several circles deeper into hell with this comment. We're trying to go the other way, for what should be obvious reasons, and you don't need any of this to make your substantive points. Nor is it in your interests, because it only discredits your argument, which is particularly bad to the extent that your argument is true.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
But yeah, I'm a racist "white supremacy apologist". Sigh. Do you not realize how massively toxic you're being here? For all your talk about "diversity" and "inclusivity" ya'll seem very quick to exclude people.
> You could have scored bonus points if you had also included "not all white people" in your reply.
Yes, "not all white people" is perfectly valid. Just as "not all men" is, or "not all Muslims are terrorists", or "not all blacks are criminals".
We're on the same damn team for crying out loud, I already said these problems need addressing, repeatedly, we just don't agree on some aspects regarding the best messaging and strategy to solve this problem.
This is like a football match where people keep tackling members of their own team. Maybe it would be better if I just succumb to the "violence" of staying silent if this is what you get if you do try and speak up but don't agree on some comparatively minor aspects. Your comment is certainly a lot more "violent" than any form of silence is.
It’s kinda like the ppl who say insults have power and then in the same breath say ACAB or “Kill the Pigs” if you believe words are powerful and can turn into actions why are you saying such inflammatory hateful things?
Just that there is a difference between punching up vs punching down. There is a difference because insults hurt when there is a history behind them. Just like a white guy calling a white guy the 'n' word doesn't hurt nearly as much as calling a Black guy that same name.
"My suspicion is that this is a weird tic of campus politics that has followed graduates into the professional arena where they unconsciously started deploying it in less appropriate contexts. If you’re in a dorm at a fancy college and you can convince an administrator that something is racist, the administrator will probably put a stop to it. At the same time, “this is bad for poor people” just isn’t going to get you far as a campus argument. After all, these schools more or less openly auction off a number of admissions slots to wealthy donors (while, of course, practicing affirmative action to keep things diverse) so they can hardly take a hard line on class politics."
What is likely to happen is we will always see it moving forward, but eventually (outside of extreme circumstances like violence), these things become less powerful as the novelty of the charge wears off.
Yes, technology can exacerbate the dynamic in Peter Turchin's "elite over-production." This article describes the class dynamic well.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/11/the-real-class-wa...
Constant bashing of white men on company calls. Exceptions if you were openly non straight. They also loved talking about how inclusive they were.
Constant mocking of customer base, who was mostly traditional white people.
I figure out quick I was hired only because they were desperate for someone with experience.
Which sadly meant hiring an undesirable.
At some point if I really need a job I may need to put on a dress.
It's fine to describe your relevant personal experience in an HN thread. What's not fine is doing the equivalent of arson (or criminal negligence). No more of this please. We've had to warn you more than once before. That's not cool.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I’d be mortified if I worked with someone who thought like this, and I’m glad I don’t.
“Pretending to be trans for (reason)” is a really really common way to mock trans people and I think you know that.
Even today there are companies, especially in the tech startup scene, which actively discriminate against "cisgender white males". It is extremely likely that even today, people put on the mask of the currently favoured sexual identity to land a job. Not to mock trans people, just to get ahead in life.
Hiring was based on race and sex. This was company policy.
They put money were there mouth was and hiring a TON of fresh out of college JR’s. Only had a couple of senior people and they were very overwhelmed.
Product was in bad shape because of it, which is how I came in.
Staying quiet on identity politics and just focusing on the tech stack got me into trouble with management.
You give some examples.
You close with a baldly transphobic sneer.
Really?
Laughing at them and pretending that they have it easy by "wearing a dress" is absolutely bigoted, sorry.
> reasonable conclusion from the way the person's workplace is structured, and the way their coworkers judge their coworkers
and
> Chuckling at the idea that trans identity amounts to "wearing a dress" is not a "reasonable conclusion", it's a hurtful caricature.
The workplace they described discriminated against the dominant white male identity, and waived it for people who deviated from it in dimensions including gender, sexual preference, and race. It is reasonable to conclude that their workplace would welcome or tolerate a dress-wearer as well, being a deviation of Western male fashion norms, with no comment on its relation to trans identity specifically, or even cross-dressing, which you somehow inferred.
To be charitable, sibling comments have made this inference as well, but I disagree that this inference is reasonable. As you mentioned,
> the idea that trans identity amounts to "wearing a dress" is not a "reasonable conclusion", it's a hurtful caricature.
And if you actually employ someone who perpetrates violence or harassment, then it really doesn’t matter whether they were prompted to do so by a list of names intended as a joke.
That person (a) needs help and (b) probably shouldn’t be kept as an employee for the safety of your workforce.
I kind of can’t believe we live in a world in which we can’t acknowledge that keeping a list of funny names is disrespectful to our fellow human beings, without then jumping to genocide as the justification for why we shouldn’t do this (and subsequently implying anyone who advocates otherwise is this pro-genocide).
What does this have to do with academia?
I've been in academia for more than a decade. We're a regional school with lots of foreign students as well as commuter students. The professors that I've interacted with regularly (and are in a dept that deals with that stuff) have never been anything but professional and they understand the importance of rigor. I've yet to see them make emotional caustic and overreaching claims because they can. I suspect most of academia is like this, you just don't hear about it, cause it's boring. If you desire it, you too can work at bad wages for 2 decades before hoping for tenure at a place you barely get to choose.
Many of these terms that cause so many issues are those that are working jargon within a domain and make sense within the context of that domain with lots of awareness of the terminology, but when they are extracted out of that context and used by people (for a variety of reasons) for political and cultural battles, it becomes an issue.
So academia is perhaps responsible, but all of academia is not.
But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.
Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.
This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.
No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
the OP said “harassment isn’t acceptable.”
you said “why is that in the discussion?”
I said “bec some ppl here think it is.”
you respond by quoting free speech case law.
We’re not arguing about the merits of how the SCOTUS rules on the 1st amendment. It’s a discussion of the appropriate response to encountering someone you disagree with.
You calling my employer now and telling them they should fire me is not an appropriate response no matter whether or not it’s protected by the first amd.
No, I didn't. You are making this up to win an argument. There is no reference to case law or SCOTUS whatsoever in my comment. What a bizarre fabrication. I see there is clearly no point in continuing this if you're going to argue in such bad faith.
Moreover, a response you deem "inappropriate" is subjective. Either your free speech is being denied or it isn't. My boss can fire me for saying a lot of things they don't like; that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech. This is the way it has always been.
That’s specifically not the discussion: you quoted the part of the OPs comment that called out the inappropriate behavior many like to engage in and agreed that it was wrong, but questioned its relevance to our discussion, it’s relevant bec many ppl don’t see it as inappropriate. Whether or not it’s legal is an entirely different discussion.
That is what you are trying to do here, and it is nonsense. Just because you feel outnumbered does not mean you are being harassed or bullied. If I swear at a customer and they complain to my boss, that does not mean I'm being harassed or bullied. How utterly childish.
Soo in your opinion this is ok? I’m so confused...
Where do you think this ideology and hypersensitivity originated?
""they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it.""
that doesn't seem like the scientific method to me. am I the dumb?
edit: also the founder of the linked site is critical of Critical Race Theory - so maybe there is bias in this article. Whatever, I asked for a place to start - so, thanks again.
It’s basically all target painting.
Edit:I’m getting pretty heavy downvoting without any responses... anyone interested in actually explaining why they disagree?
Now the priest hand down by divine inspiration. Don’t question the orthodoxy.
Adults understand that dehumanizing someone is one path along the road that ends in violence.
We all know that smaller things can lead to bigger things, but the smaller thing is not the bigger thing.
Unless the transitivity is close to 100% then unbounded conflation just introduces its own unjust currents, turning attempts at constructive change into a bog of dysfunction.
I find it pretty hard to believe this went down the way you say.
> Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence.
So in your ideal professional environment, name-calling would be fine?
The blind employee is married to a woman who immigrated to the US from Japan. He was being lectured by a young semi-useless data scientist who grew up in a wealthy suburb just outside of Dearborn. I'm totally making all of this up in your eyes because you don't like what you're hearing.
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.
I notice you didn't reply about the name-calling.
We've had to ask you several times in the past not to do these things. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of this site to heart? We'd appreciate it. We're trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, if possible, and using HN for these acrimonious battles contributes to destroying this place. The site guidelines are the way they are for good reason and they need to take precedence.
Is that a quote? It sounds like you are paraphrasing your perception of someone's point in the least favorable possible way. If the guy really said "white people are tainted," then he might suck and I hope you pushed back.
Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence.
At some point can we all admit that the most narcissistic, dramatic people are overly-indulged by this garbage?
I'm at a startup now, but left a company in February that got torched by this toxic BS. My favorite moment was sitting there, and having a coworker (US born, but of Arab descent) who grew up in an extremely wealthy neighborhood with immense privilege, lecturing a blind white male employee about how much privilege he had, and then going on to talk about how white people were uniquely tainted by the slave trade that some of their ancestors engaged in. Naturally, he didn't seem to realize that the African slave trade was invented by his Arab ancestors. Nor did he see the irony in the fact that holding a person responsible for horrible action of people who look like them is the same way of thinking that leads bigots to blame all Arabs for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers.
Seeing good companies get torn to shreds by this campus idiocy reminds me of how insulated academia is from the real world. The absurd, essay-driven philosophy masquerading as social science makes it impossible for groups of humans to achieve anything productive. Nobody ever noticed this before, because in the pseudo social science world they inhabit, productivity isn't a thing.