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

81–90 of 141 posts

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

#81

Post by nske »

Traster wrote: post #41
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.

>This might be difficult for you to understand but explicitly hiring someone with a particular skin colour is the fucking definition of racism. The only difference between what they're doing now and what they did before is the skin color requirement is explicit instead of implicit. Only hire white guys? Meritocracy! Decide you want to hire 1 black guy? Racist!

You make it sound as if they were intentionally only hiring white guys before -factoring skin colour in any way in their hiring process. Are there reasons to think that was the case?

Because if not, even if there was a statistical imbalance in the hires according to skin colour -or any other property that should be irrelevant, gender, sexual orientation etc-, do you think companies should go out of their way to try and compensate for that imbalance instead of only factoring in properties relevant to the job?

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

#82

Post by 8note »

kepler1 wrote: post #52
uniqueid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I despise this kind of actions taken > based on the colour of the skin Are you sure you aren't applying a rule, on this occasion, without thinking it through? Skin-colour is relevant to the job here: it's a guarantee that the board member will have first-hand experience dealing with the issues Alexis thinks Reddit has mishandled.

The notion that only representatives from those who suffer racism or oppression can be the ones to get us out of it, is an attitude that hinders all of us from making progress against it.

Putting people that don't have an intimate understanding of the problem sounds like a great recipe for success.

Sure, a plumber might have the solution to the halting problem, but I'd trust someone who's spent a good deal of their life interacting with the problem instead

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

#83

Post by freespeechkami »

knolax wrote: post #61
high_derivative wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope the irony is not lost on you when you ask me to leave this platform for disagreeing with you.

I hope you realize the irony of the fact that you're posting on a forum much more heavily moderated than Reddit.

False.

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

#84

Post by Traster »

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…

Why are you mis-representing what the NYT did? Are you just hoping people don't read your citations. From your citation

> For example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the role of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa”; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned. Editors should have sought further corroboration of those assertions, or removed them from the piece. The assertion that police officers “bore the brunt” of the violence is an overstatement that should have been challenged. The essay also includes a reference to a “constitutional duty” that was intended as a paraphrase; it should not have been rendered as a quotation.

The NYT didn't apologize for publishing an Op-Ed from a Senator. It apologized for doing it's job badly and publishing materially false statements as fact.

It's worth noting that Senator Cotton went on to publicly call for the extra judicial killing of protestors. Which, if we're really so concerned about legitimate opinions, I would suggest murdering protestors would have more of a chilling effect than choosing not to publish their op-eds.

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

#85

Post by blackhaz »

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.

How far does one have to go "out of their way" and who is to judge if one has gone enough? By this logic, racism is fully the responsibility of the employer. Are all employers responsible, then, for homelessness, drug addiction, cancer and all other issues of our society, and should go "out of their way" every day to address them? If not, then who is to judge who should go out of their way and when? If employers are responsible then employers should attempt to resolve all the problems of our society, all the time, which is, a priori, impossible. Hence, I don't think your argument is correct or constructive.

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

#86

Post by manigandham »

trianglem wrote: post #43
high_derivative wrote: post #29

To me, it seems like a combination of childish-authoritarian beliefs that the world will change for the better once, and only once, you stop anyone from saying anything controversial at all. Once nobody is able to disagree, bad things won't exist any more.

It’s all about doing what you can when you can. Please take this acerbic, hyperbolic attitude somewhere else.

What does this actually do though? There are countless examples of hiding disagreeable/hateful/unwanted speech leading to no reduction in action, if not actually increasing it.

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

#87

Post by Darmody »

8note wrote: post #82
kepler1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that only representatives from those who suffer racism or oppression can be the ones to get us out of it, is an attitude that hinders all of us from making progress against it.

Putting people that don't have an intimate understanding of the problem sounds like a great recipe for success. Sure, a plumber might have the solution to the halting problem, but I'd trust someone who's spent a good deal of their life interacting with the problem instead

Having suffered racism doesn't qualify you for fighting it.

If all black have suffered racism why there's racist black people out there? Would those who look down at Asians or South Americans have the solution for racism?

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

#88

Post by manigandham »

vincentmarle wrote: post #62
kitsune_ wrote: post #38

Ellen K. Pao was right all along. Also if the replies in here are representative of Silicon Valley as a whole, damn. It just reminds me of the stereotypical too-smart-for-their-own-good hacker who is prone to making sweeping generalisations and extrapolations in domains that lie outside of their own experience or expertise. I know I'm prone to this and I've met a lot of arrogant smart people who fall into this catego…

> Also if the replies in here are representative of Silicon Valley as a whole, damn. Unbelievable indeed. When is HN going to come out with their anti hate policy?

The HN guidelines are already sufficient: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#89

Post by i_love_limes »

manigandham wrote: post #55
i_love_limes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, who better to make decisions related to the problems of racism in Reddit than a group of white people. And intentionally including a non white person is in that discussion is actually racist. I think the "reverse racism" argument shows that you haven't read a huge amount in this topic. Which is surprising given the focus of these issues in the past couple of weeks.

You're discounting a group of people as unfit by nothing more than their race/skin color. That's racist, by definition. None of this will ever be solved as long as race and physical characteristics continue to be of importance (regardless of what "side" you're on) over someone's actions and character.

I really really implore you to read up on this stuff more. It's clear that you haven't approached the subject of racism with humility, humbleness, or even the possibility that you aren't the best person to know about the issues that other people face.

You are right in a way, I am discounting a person who hasn't felt the effects of racism to fully understand racism and give a good opinion on it. Which seems like a pretty good benchmark? I think your response to this enforces that those who haven't felt it aren't good judges of it.

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

#90

Post by [deleted] »

vincentmarle wrote: post #62
kitsune_ wrote: post #38

Ellen K. Pao was right all along. Also if the replies in here are representative of Silicon Valley as a whole, damn. It just reminds me of the stereotypical too-smart-for-their-own-good hacker who is prone to making sweeping generalisations and extrapolations in domains that lie outside of their own experience or expertise. I know I'm prone to this and I've met a lot of arrogant smart people who fall into this catego…

> Also if the replies in here are representative of Silicon Valley as a whole, damn. Unbelievable indeed. When is HN going to come out with their anti hate policy?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN