Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Let her speak please”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 723 posts

Re: “Let her speak please”

#421

Post by adamsea »

Throwing in my two cents: a) the intent of the moderator is less important, in this specific instance, than the systematic and structural sexism which we know to be present. Who knows, perhaps the moderator was secretly grateful because they were unconscious of the impact of their behavior? Perhaps not. Outcome is a more useful measure than intent here.

b) In a perfect world, if the same thing was happening to a man, I would hope someone would speak up for him as well. Not only was the authors behavior an example of feminism in action, we could also say it was an act of human decency.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#422

Post by xaa »

weberc2 wrote: post #322
DanBC wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtue signal Your use of this vapid phrase is itself a form of virtue signalling.

I thought it means "dogwhistling", except for the political left instead of the right?

Sort of. My understanding is that it means "declaring your (virtuous) opposition to , regardless of whether is actually an instance of X or whether Y is actually harmful."

On the right, it might be: murder is bad, therefore I oppose abortion.

On the left: gay marriage is good, and opposition to it is homophobia, therefore Brandon Eich should be fired.

When the link between X and Y is too specious, it implies the speaker's primary goal is to show virtue by opposing X, rather than any real concern they have about Y.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#423

Post by throw_this_away »

wccrawford wrote: post #266
discombobulate wrote: post #159

I received a delivery from a black gentleman today. Whilst reaching out for the package I was concerned he may think I'm racist if I wasn't excessively nice to him. I think I may be uncomfortable around minorities for fear of being labelled a racist. I have a similar worry around women. I think becoming racist would solve my concerns -- at least in my own mind. However, it doesn't make any sense to do that: individua…

I've had many of the same thoughts. To the point that I think I've become more racist because of them. Isn't that what racism is? Treating someone different because of their skin color? I've instead resolved to think and worry less about it. I know I don't treat people different because of skin color, and that's good enough. If I'm rude to someone and they think it's race or gender related, that's their problem, not…

I don't know your friend so I can't speak to directly to her specific behaviors, but I know a lot of people like your friend and I think it might be helpful for you if you considered her thoughts from a different perspective - Perhaps you may not be personally 'racist', and perhaps you don't feel 'racist', but there is enough objective science based evidence to conclude that we live in a society that highly favors whiteness over browness and blackness. And if you're a white person in a society that favors whiteness, you benefit from that favoritism. That benefit is what people are calling a system of 'white privilege' and 'systemic racism'. So as a person who benefits from these systems, and has never experienced what it's like to be on the other side of this system, it's possible (likely even) that you've unconsciously learned some behaviors that contribute to this system. So her words may not be an attack on you personally, it's just a very blunt way of acknowledging something that has been proven (scientifically) time and time again. White privilege exists, all white people benefit from it...

The last thing I want to say is that something can be racist even if there is no intent to be racist. The outcome is what matters. There are millions of perfectly nice people who don't intentionally do racist things that still end up contributing to racism because of subconscious bias that have been instilled in them by our society.

Just an example - http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-...

I doubt these companies are intentionally expressing bias towards minorities, but the outcome is a hiring process that requires them to 'mask' their identity, a burden that white people don't have to bear. And if you don't have to bear a burden carried by a large percentage of people unlike yourself, that's a privilege...

Re: “Let her speak please”

#424

Post by croon »

waqf wrote: post #412
croon wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He spends 0:40 asking her the first question. He continues talking when she tries to speak once. >She talks for 0:30 >He redirects her from her answer and tries to clarify what he wants to know for 0:55 >She talks for 1:00 answering this question > He begins clarifying/providing an example of what she is saying for 0:20, continuing to talk when she tries to speak once. It is during this interruption that "let her sp…

Twice it happens that he is asking a ridiculously long question, she starts to break in but he continues talking. Whom are you counting as the interruptor here? She is the one formally interrupting, but he should cede because his job is to make her talk. If you count him as "interrupting" merely because he's doing the wrong thing in the context, then interruption-count is no longer the objective measure that it was i…

I count him as the interruptor simply because he started each "long question" through an interruption without allowing her to change course to accomodate.

You can see the contrast in behavior to all other panelists in the first hour. If he and any of the male panelists end up talking at the same time he always concedes immediately.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#425

Post by vog »

ShannonAlther wrote: post #397
vog wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue at hand is an example for precisely the opposite. Everybody agrees that the moderator's behaviour was inappropriate, the discussion is mostly about how bad it was (what should the consequences be?) and the label (sexism or not?). More general, regarding subjectivity: Although the individual members of a group or society have different subjective standards, they can still find some common ground on what beha…

You're using a different definition of 'offensive' than I am. Also, note that no societies we regard highly have outlawed talking over people. Unless your plan is to modify institutions to reduce offensive behaviour you won't have much luck.

I don't get what you are trying to say. I clearly put "talking over people" into the category of informal social rules, not law.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#427

Post by nostromo »

kefka wrote: post #282
andai wrote: post #86

> You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was root…

Indeed, a level-headed comment is what is required in this situation. This is her livelihood, her career.. Pretty much everything for her. If she was to attack her colleagues, it would spell certain doom for her career. Her opinions and proofs would be dismissed and denigrated. And the specter of "Will I be accused of sexism if I pan this paper?" will rear its ugly head anywhere she would turn. Think of this as an an…

Aren't you doing the same thing the moderator did?

You're dismissing her comments out-of-hand as not entirely honest and assuming you know her true feelings.

Maybe now that she's been given the opportunity to speak, we should listen to and consider her thoughts.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#428

Post by ShannonAlther »

vog wrote: post #425
ShannonAlther wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using a different definition of 'offensive' than I am. Also, note that no societies we regard highly have outlawed talking over people. Unless your plan is to modify institutions to reduce offensive behaviour you won't have much luck.

I don't get what you are trying to say. I clearly put "talking over people" into the category of informal social rules, not law.

Yes you did, but then you said that the solution is to reform society so that informal social rules are never broken. And I'm saying that unless you want to make those rules into laws, or something like laws, it's not doable.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#429

Post by DanBC »

_jcwu wrote: post #426

Why do activists like these always have to write that they "shake"? I usually stop reading and taking them seriously.

because normal human beings have a stress response that includes adrenaline being released.

they are literally shaking, and they are accurately describing their stress response.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#430

Post by dwaltrip »

curiousgal wrote: post #146
specialist wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be a sexist, racist to say stupid things. Bill Maher just dropped the n-bomb. It's not for me to determine what offends other people. To have successful interactions, relationships, I try very hard to meet other people where they're at, listen more than talk, adapt. Sometimes it doesn't work. Most of the time it does. --- In this case, the moderator's job is to make the panel shine, just like Johnny…

> the moderator's job is to make the panel shine To be honest, it wasn't any different from any panel I've witnessed, there's always people speaking over each other, let alone in vague subjects such as cosmology and string theory. Just a classic case of confirmation bias if you ask me; "Scientists are sexist" "Oh he interrupted her!" "Yup sexism is confirmed"

Sexism is not a binary thing... There can be small degrees of deep-rooted sexism that are present in situations like the OP, which are mixed together with general rudeness and perhaps some over excitedness.

In this case, calling the host "sexist" might even be a little unfair, as he his behavior might be closer to an actual social norm that contains some less extreme aspects of sexism. Instead, we might describe the event as a minor example of structural sexism in today's culture/society, without needing to label the host as a "sexist".

Most importantly, we should realize that descriptions of events like this are very complex, subtle, immensely context dependent, time sensitive, and difficult. It is a moment in time, caught between decades of cultural shift and new ways of looking at things. It's not surprising people have different takes, and that you can't really call any specific interpretation perfectly correct. We are pushing up against current limits in our ability to understand and discuss certain visceral, important parts of the human experience.

I don't think that trying to box things like this into one extreme or the other is helpful.

Post reply on HN