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

Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 141 posts

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#71

Post by eganist »

mohdmasd wrote: post #63
eganist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what defines "hate"? Are they going be as consistent with the content of gangsta rappers? I'd wager no. Probably because the content from "gangsta rappers" doesn't instigate brutality that leverages a power imbalance the way cultural and systemic hatred drive police brutality. > thug brutality is a bigger problem than police brutality It's objectively not, and I won't hide the reasoning either: police brutality…

You're missing his point; what defines "hateful" is mostly subjective and is always influenced by the watchmen interests. And what is acceptable today may be considered hateful tomorrow, in fact back in the 1990s "gangsta rap" was considered hateful.

> back in the 1990s "gangsta rap" was considered hateful.

By whom?

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#72

Post by manigandham »

8note wrote: post #54
john_alan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? Of fucking course not. > If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad? This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism.

I'd say the opposite; not going out of your way to hire people with some specific skin colours is racist. It wouldn't be if all the people with different skin colours had an equal standing, but they don't, and have a history inequality. If you purposely ignore the inequality, you're perpetuating it. You're working with a faulty definition of racism.

To do so would mean discriminating against the races you're not choosing. This is, by definition, racist. Also the mere fact that inequality exists is not evidence of racism.

I find it very troubling to see that race is increasingly the primary selection criteria by people who want to progressively "eliminate" racism. It might be good-intentioned but it's ultimately incompatible and doomed to failure. The only solution is to go beyond such attributes and focus on actions and character instead.

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#75

Post by flippinburgers »

kitsune_ wrote: post #19
KKPMW wrote: post #13

This whole post is weird. Based on the tone they seem to think they are combating racism. But really the CEO of a company just announced that they are looking for a new candidate. Requirements? - No particular requirements, except having the right skin color.

Your implied reverse-racism argument just doesn't hold. Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad?

There is no such thing as "reverse racism". What a silly term.

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#76

Post by manigandham »

8note wrote: post #66
ALittleLight wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit silly to say "reverse racism" doesn't hold when race is an explicit criteria for the job. Maybe this is still net positive for all the good that could come out of it, but clearly racist to say certain races need not apply. Imagine I'm selling clothes to upper middle class people in Iowa and someone applies to be a salesman or a general manager. "Oh sorry, I'm really looking for a white person here beca…

But people of all races are required to know white people culture to attend to our needs. In the situation you give, being white offers no special qualifications.

Culture is not race or skin color, nor dependent on them.

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#77

Post by kitsune_ »

john_alan wrote: post #30
kitsune_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your implied reverse-racism argument just doesn't hold. Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad?

> Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? Of fucking course not. > If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad? This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism.

No it is not. This is not the innocent, pristine untouched garden of eden before Adam and Eve ate the apple. This is a society where the ancestors of one group of people auctioned off the ancestors of another group of people like cattle. This is a society where 38 years ago, the KKK last lynched someone. This is a society, where 30% of all black males in Alabama permanently lost their right to vote. This is a society where you get a slap on the wrist if you are a rich white coke-head but get years in prison if you happen to be black, poor and are caught with a bong.

The counter-example to your argument: Imagine a company with a serious sexual harrassment problem, where men abused and raped female staff. You argue that in such a situation, giving a voice to a female victim is sexism! No!

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#78

Post by j_4 »

8note wrote: post #54
john_alan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you telling me that there are no capable African-Americans who could fill that board position? Of fucking course not. > If not, the what are you arguing? That increasing the representation of historically oppressed minority groups is bad? This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism.

I'd say the opposite; not going out of your way to hire people with some specific skin colours is racist. It wouldn't be if all the people with different skin colours had an equal standing, but they don't, and have a history inequality. If you purposely ignore the inequality, you're perpetuating it. You're working with a faulty definition of racism.

>not going out of your way to hire people with some specific skin colours is racist.

Sorry to be painfully cliche but this is some straight up war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength stuff.

Re: Changes to our content policy, our board, and where we’re going from here

#79

Post by MindTooth »

flyinglizard wrote: post #40

This week the NYT apologized[0] for publishing an op-ed[1] from a Republican senator which stated something (using the military to restore civil order) which has broad - if not majority - support among Americans[2]. Some columnists apologetically said that giving Sen. Tom Cotton a stage could be justified on the basis of giving that to other enemies of the US in the past, such as Iran and the Taliban[3]. It seems lik…

Seems that a new thing these days is that we need to be lectured on what the content mean. And that we are incapable of understanding ourselves. When did we get so dum that some individuals/groups gets to do the explaining. What makes us sure that these actually have the right answer. IMHO, I’m not sure.
Post reply on HN