I can't think of a time that I faced the level of ugliness laid out in this story even once in my 32 years, so the last thing that occurs to me when I read something like this is "Wow, the author is saying some completely unacceptably racist things"

[EDIT: Shit. I'm 34, not 32 or even 33. I have no idea why I can't keep that straight.]

I've been around these kind of complaints in person, and while I know that the injustices taking place are horrible and uncalled for, I also know that the complainer is also (not-so-subtly any more) racist as well. Perhaps he wasn't before he entered the school system or the workforce (not necessarily this job), but saying things like dumbwhite*, bringing up colonization like slavery as property is taking place in his neighbourhood (he's going through legal to get this solved, something slaves could never do), and repeatedly bringing up that his tormentors are white, male, rich, etc. just shows that he's brought his own racist viewpoints to the table.

This reminds me of the atmosphere in South Africa years after apartheid was rescinded. The atmosphere, not the gruesome crimes. Perhaps it can be justified, but it sure wasn't how MLK Jr. or Mandela (at least after he became president) attacked the problem and it's only good for outrage, not getting anything done.

White guilt isn't going to help solve racism, but I agree that the author deserves some justice.

It's the really horrible bit that deserves focus.

Are you looking to round out the racism discussion derail bingo card, or just completely clueless?

It doesn't help that a lot of the language of power dynamics was co-opted by the self-help community, which can often be legitimately criticized in these ways.

Pointing out an ugly tone does not mean you think it invalidates the argument.

"Yes, you're angry but instead of talking about why you're angry let's talk about how the way you expressed your anger is inappropriate".

Its an inappropriate topic change, directing blame at the author when it's really not warranted.

As a minority, it is really, really hard to change or rectify the corruption of the majority by trying to fight them head-on. These sort of revolutions worked when the majority of the people overthrew a corrupt minority that had excessive power. However, thinking things over, I'm not sure if the author is even really out to solve the large racial issue in general with this post. I don't think that was his point, so maybe I'm offering suggestions to a goal that he never had in the first place. If this, like most tumblr posts, is just to get it out in writing so he can think clearly and draw attention by the public to the situation, then yes, it works.

While I agree that the saintly thing to is respond without bringing up your persecutors' race, I am pretty sympathetic to people who have been the victims of overt racism seeing some things in terms of race. They've had their faces rubbed in it.

And I'm sorry to come down hard on you, but it's pretty arrogant to tell someone who is still suffering the consequences of being harassed because of his race not to take notice of the race of the people harassing him.

Sincerity and respect for a person's race does not take a backseat just because someone made racist remarks to someone else. I've been the victim of racist remarks and I'm white, that doesn't make it okay for me to refer to the other person by their race. In fact, it makes it WORSE.

Being tolerant of ANYONE using racism for ANY reason is not okay.

EDIT: The more I read your comment, the more it looks like you support racism as a means of retaliation to racism. This is why racism still (and always) exists.

Agreed.

> makes his complete argument null and void

No, actually it doesn't. That's really not how logic works.

This is an audience problem. This post was pretty clearly not meant to be an intellectual tour de force; it was a rant, and a step away from frothing at the mouth. The author doesn't claim to be perfect, nor is he. For an audience like HN, it's completely inappropriate, because it doesn't take into account our biases and worldviews; but I seriously doubt he expected to be on the HN front page.

Edit: Also legal action? Im sure his use of "dumbwhite motherfucker" in court will go over very well. Come on...

Oh hey, it's the rare explicitly stated ad hominem attack.

(Not that that's any better.)

So racial epithets are OK as long as you're targeting a group of people who have wronged you? Got it.

Not that it in any way legitimizes the vile things that were said to the man.

So long as you're talking about a group of people who have systemic, institutionalized power over you based on the colour of their own skin? Damn right they're OK. I hate to break it to you, but it's pretty much only white people that think race is no big deal. People of colour tend to get disabused of that foolish idea pretty damn quickly by reality. See for instance http://www.womanist-musings.com/2012/02/anti-racist-billboar...

It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.

The pattern is:

Apply standard of neutrality to poster, and find poster wanting - hence remain skeptical to keep an open mind.

"there could be a misunderstanding."

The promulgator and supporters are always people who are at best well meaning, but generally oblivious to privilege or its manifestations.

This will be pointed out, and the promulgator will point out how they have done X or are friends with Y in defence.

So first off - you aren't being targeted. The promulgator is acting rationally based on his experiences.

The best examples to counter this were an AMA from a guy who had a sex change operation. He then could clarify what Male privilege is, and how you would be completely oblivious to it until its gone.

It turns down as a woman a simple thing like walking down a road changes in a manner drastically different from what men are used to.

Similarly there was an AMA from a girl who used to look good, and then lost that advantage. All of a sudden she saw privileges she assumed were just normal things - disappear.

It turns out that men don't normally open doors for you, or are helpful.

Unfortunately when you react with outrage, most people have no idea what you are talking about and respond with:

"It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made"

• We see a stranger (call them the victim) on the internet making strong, negative claims against a set of people who are also strangers.

• We often only have the victim's word to judge these claims by.

• Therefore, there will often be debate about these words (which we can talk about with certainty) instead of the claims made (which we only know about second-hand.)

Starting from this perspective seems to lead to really, really degenerate conversation. It tends to be worst when talking about rape or sexual harassment charges.

(There's sometimes an additional weird layer where commenters think the original victim shouldn't make claims they can't prove to third parties, regardless of the truth of those claims.)

Other wise its always a death spiral at worst or a holding pattern on average.

I think yours is a larger general case - and I am trying to invoke perhaps a child case with the addition of privilege blindness.

What is tragic that this is a perfect example of good intentions that lead to terrible results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

In brief, saying "X is wrong, because X subscribes to ideology I" is not a logically valid argument. Willing to hear X's argument and consider it on its own merits does not grant legitimacy to I.

The narrator's argument isn't "white people are colonizers, so...", he merely enumerates what he has experienced. That phrasing is unfortunate (but pales in comparison to being told far more offensive things _at work_) it doesn't detract from (or add to) his argument, i.e., it's an irrelevant detail.

There's a time to vent and a time to make a case. I personally feel that the author would have been better served making a case (EEOC) instead of venting in a public method. Especially since the identities of the author and the company in question are very easy to track down. This could have long term negative consequences for the author, and may make his claim harder if he does decided to take his former employer to court.

YMMV.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/...

However, it detracts from the story compared to a straight telling, which would have focused 100% on the racist jerk.

IMO.

When should it be considered acceptable for a victim to mimic their aggressor's behavior (especially when it is similar behavior that caused the victimization to begin with)?

Disclaimer: I'm trying to understand and not support to any of the GP comments.

I'm not saying that this is what happened. You asked why it might be relevant and I just wanted to point this out.

IANAL, but I wonder if this post will hurt his chances of successfully pursuing his employers?

Why do you believe that? Have you been in a bunch of pitch perfect productive conversations about racism? In my experience, when one tactic for derailing conversations about racism fails people just pick up another one. In this conversation you see many such strategies at play:

I see all of these as efforts to not talk about the actual structures being criticized in the post:

* Saying the tone makes the message unlistenable * Talking about the extent to which the post is effective activism ("he would be more effective if...") * Stopping conversation do to perceived insurmountable "bias" * Refocusing on other forms of racism (like the dumbwhite* comments) * Talking about whether people are "racists" and refocusing on their overall character.

It goes on and on. Pitch perfect tone doesn't get you through that wilderness.

And honestly, when someone has been through something so traumatic, demanding perfect pitch is heartless.

However, let's take the story at face value for a second. What occured between this person and the people around him wasn't just inappropriate workplace conduct, it was systemic and demeaning in a way that is hard for someone to get if they're not the subject of it. Most people are not wired to take this kind of abuse in a sustained way. This person is hurt, they're confused, they feel powerless, and they're lashing out.

So I think we can probably get to the victim's fucked up statements after we let the outrage over the institutionalized racism that the story consists of simmer down, don't you think? I've said some pretty dumb, mean things when I'm suffering from emotional trauma, haven't you? At least we have an excuse and we can apologize and say, "That was my anger and frustration, I know it's wrong."

But perhaps what makes me most angry is that other members of this team were complicit in this treatment. They're not stopping it, they're not complaining, they're not resigning, they're not objecting. It's terrifying.

Repeat after me: WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER FROM RACISM. Even if an individual was prejudiced against someone because they are white, they would not be affected outside of that one interaction. White folks' social standing and ability to survive are not attacked daily on the basis of their skin.

EDIT: This is in context for the United States based on the blog author being in SF.

So what about the rest of what he said?

> It's obvious by your stupid statement

There's no need for name calling. It's the lowest form of debate.

Most of the country doesn't give a shit what color you are so long as you don't start with a presumptive "you're a fucking racist!" attitude.

Hey there! I'm a white guy who has taken walks through Baltimore before— in fact, all of Baltimore. What you're talking about isn't at all systemic like the shit the OP has to deal with. Yes, white people are victims of racially-motivated crimes. In fact, some of them are event prosecuted as hate crimes! But it's not systemic, so comparing it to white-on-black racism isn't fair.

Also, please don't support your views with the, "I have black friends" excuse. It doesn't help your cause.

I totally accept that blacks face more racism in many aspects of society today, especially professionally. But in Baltimore a bunch of black kids jumped me, and they told me it was because I was white and I "thought I could walk around their neighborhood" (a block from Penn Station which is actually pretty gentrified). It wasn't even a robbery, although they did rob me, but if that was their only goal they wouldn't have continued to beat me for the ten minutes after I had given up. Oh, and of course that's not considered a hate crime.

So when that happens, and then you tell me, in all caps, that white people are never the victims of racism, do you think I'm more or less inclined to agree with your other points?

I wasn't killed but I was beat to a pulp one day for being white by a group of people. My crime? Trying to shake a guy's hand that walked up to me. Apparently that was some sort of insult. Not institutional enough for you? A non-white police officer was literally 20 feet away from me and did absolutely nothing. Probably because he was scared.

I've never had it happen to me before or since but to say someone cannot be violently targeted for being white is absurd. Was it racism? Well, that depends on your definition of racism. Some only consider it racism when perpetrated by someone who belongs to a group that traditionally has less power. But, I'll tell you, I felt pretty powerless that day in the face of a group with more power than I possessed at that moment.

EDIT: I would point out that some groups suffer much more from racism than others, so we should be aware of that reality in dealing with racism. To that end, whites in the United States are largely unaffected by racist attitudes.

That's a load of crap. I am considered "white" (you need papers and blood quote to prove you're Native American despite what some senatorial candidate thinks), and I have gotten a ton of crap because I grew up on a reservation not of my father's tribe. And no, I did not get to flee to the mystically accepting fellow white folk in the the town next door (I lived on the rez after all and am related).

The brain is an amazing pattern matching machine. You missed matching the whole pattern.

You're not helping your cause by making ridiculous statements. The most recent one I could find was 2 weeks ago. http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2778011.shtml

You have to go here to see the police report: http://lakeminnetonka.patch.com/articles/arrest-made-in-conn...

But you have to understand the rules of the game. Unless a black person is literally shouting "die whitey" while stomping someone to death, then it's not a hate crime when a black person attacks a white person, regardless of actual motivation or lack thereof. It's just another random senseless crime and not part of a pattern. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_an...

I am slavic. Wendish, specifically, if you are familiar. I am glad that my ancestors were enslaved for a while. It brought my culture out of petty infighting and settled us in Northern Europe. My life is better today because my ancestors were enslaved. For me to run around with a chip on my shoulder demanding reparations would be ridiculous.

The government does systematically dismantle white communities. Try running around saying you're proud of being white. You're instantly labeled a bigot. A man recently tried trademarking the phrase "white pride, country wide". Despite trademarks for everything from "jewish pride" to "latino pride", he was denied. The FBI specifically targets white nationalist organizations-- Randy Weaver had his wife and son murdered at Ruby Ridge because he refused to falsely testify against his Aryan Nations associates.

Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Whites are the people that built this country, and we are under attack for the same reason that Marathis are under attack in India, and Gazprom is stealing land from Nigerians. Bankers and commodity magnates would separate those attached to the soil from the lands which rightfully belong to them, so they can endlessly charge them for being there, as well as steal all the resources.

Incidents of violence crime based on race occur, there is no disputing that. What we are talking about primarily is racism as it affects whites, both on a micro- and macro-level (which is annoying that you taking a derailment in this direction since the original story is a black man talking about individual racist experiences working in the valley, notice how you and others have made this about whites rather than racist treatment of people of color).

> I am slavic. Wendish, specifically, if you are familiar. I am glad that my ancestors were enslaved for a while. It brought my culture out of petty infighting and settled us in Northern Europe. My life is better today because my ancestors were enslaved. For me to run around with a chip on my shoulder demanding reparations would be ridiculous.

This is post hoc reasoning. You have no idea how the Wends would be as a culture today in the absence of enslavement. Also, your current standing today in no way makes amends for the rape and murder of a people in the past. It should be noted that the history of the Wends is much further removed than the history of blacks in the United States, and that white-ness has become the social norm in the western world, so you benefit from a social condition that directly depends on the exploitation of people of color if you live in one of those western countries. Also, the experience of you as Wendish is extremely different some a black person living in the United States, so I don't believe there is even a comparison to make here.

> The government does systematically dismantle white communities.

Show me where the United States is actively dismantling or has actively dismantled white community based on race in modern history, because AFAIK there is no such scenario.

> Try running around saying you're proud of being white. You're instantly labeled a bigot. A man recently tried trademarking the phrase "white pride, country wide". Despite trademarks for everything from "jewish pride" to "latino pride", he was denied.

In the United States, white-ness is considered the cultural default. Most of society in the United States already promotes white-ness above the cultures of people of color. Also, white supremacy groups continue to operate and hate speech is not a crime in the US, so these groups may continue to operate if they so choose to. Note that if you are trying to promote white superiority, then yes you are a bigot.

> The FBI specifically targets white nationalist organizations-- Randy Weaver had his wife and son murdered at Ruby Ridge because he refused to falsely testify against his Aryan Nations associates.

The Aryan Nations are not just an advocacy group, they are a separatist group that advocates and performs acts of violence. These groups are investigated by the FBI for operating in that way.

> Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Whites are the people that built this country

This is grossly mistaken. While whites have contributed to what this country is today, so have non-white immigrants and slaves and their descendants. If you truly believe that white people made the US, you need to crack open a history book.

> we are under attack for the same reason that Marathis are under attack in India, and Gazprom is stealing land from Nigerians.

I won't be making comments about society and cultures that are not western, as rarely do such comparisons actually contain truth, and I do not have enough knowledge of those situations to accurately describe them.

Suppose in a population of 100, there are 20 blue and 80 green people. Suppose that 10 blue people are the victim of green crime in a given year, while blue people commit 20 crimes against green people in the same period. So you could say that blue people commit twice as much crime as green people, which is true, but that leaves out the fact of the population disparity. If a blue person has a 50% chance of criminal insult from a green person, while a green person only has a 25% chance of experiencing that, then it's obviously better to be green than it is to be blue because you are only half as likely to become a victim of crime.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself often look at the absolute numbers, compare the 20 blue-on-green crimes with the blue population size of 20, and leap to the conclusion that all blue people are criminals. While the percentage of criminals in the blue population is almost certainly higher on the basis of simple probability (as blue criminals would otherwise need to be >8 more active than green ones), what you have there is a correlative rather than a causal relationship : we don't know to what extent the incidence of criminality in a population causes crime against that population, a classic chicken-and-egg problem that most likely does not have a simple binary solution.

Actually, the crime rate among blacks is much higher even after normalizing for population.

As a Slav, my people were in bondage much longer than blacks in the United States. Try an order of a millenia or two. I do not care. It is far more advantageous for me to be industrious and build personal wealth than blame distant oppressors for a few centuries of enslavement. I benefitted from the bad conditions of my ancestors, and guess what? So did blacks in the United States. They should stop being professional victims and make things if they want to have equal cultural influence.

Beyond that, this whole discussion is a distraction from the people that have real undue power, those in control of the banks and the media.... If we fight amongst ourselves about race we miss the man behind the Zion curtain.

Go troll somewhere else, weev.

If "built" == "shot the Native Americans who settled"

There's another definition, which is talk that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races. Right now, if modern USA life was a video game, "white male" would be an easier difficulty level than "black male". There are statistically less problems for the "white male" group. Racist talk is talk that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/white/black/g and make it just as racist.

So no, it's more racist to say "dumbblack" than "dumbwhite"

There are degrees of racism? Wasn't that a binary thing? I understand that racists aren't created equal since some are filled with more prejudices than others but I think the same doesn't apply to racism itself. I'm not arguing that life is harder for people who are (or so we are told, I've got no data) the majority of victims but a victim being racist isn't being "less racist" after all. He's contributing to a vicious circle. Whilst I understand such behaviour from an emotional point of view, it's definitely not wise.

In most situations, saying "dumbblack" would be more offensive for black person than "dumbwhite" for white person. Especially in this case. It's like if you had a couple of bad experiences with the police, you could start saying offensive things about police officers in general. You could be accused of "policism" but in fact, it would be quite understandable reaction. When he said "dumbwhite", he was kind of "revenging" their racism, which is very different from saying "dumbwhite" just because he disrespects white people.

I generally think it's safer to frame in terms of the effect (which you mostly do) than motivation. Even if someone has no ill intent, and simply talks a certain way because they haven't really thought about the issues, their speech still does harm.

But it doesnt matter if its funny! It matters if its racist!

That's like saying that steak is food, but ramen isn't. Clearly, steak is considered a higher-quality food, but that doesn't negate the fact that ramen is food as well.

Due to the historical mistreatment of black people in America, it is more socially unacceptable to say something like "dumbblack"; however, "dumbwhite" is no less accurately described by 'a hatred or intolerance of another race'.

See, while I think the author has something of a chip on his shoulder, he's got some historical and demographic basis for it, and chips weigh more heavily on younger shoulders; it's easier for me to be philosophical about life's obstacles insofar as I've survived to middle age in reasonable comfort and so on. And no, I don't think this is an unacceptable way to speak. It's unacceptable in the workplace, and I'd be lukewarm towards it in a social context, but people have to the freedom to think and express things that I find odious to the extent that I have the freedom to disagree or walk away without any negative consequences. That's not the case in an employment situation, because while you can walk away there's a measurable economic cost to doing so.

EDIT: plus, it's easy for me to avoid dealing with this guy. I won't be his friend. But I really worry about the culture of the software industry, and if Kixeye spreads to mean more asshole workplaces, that's something that's a lot harder to avoid.