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

91–100 of 141 posts

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

#91

Post by concordDance »

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…

Isn't the whole point of this upcoming policy change to prevent people being able to hear racist voices?

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

#92

Post by upatricck »

i_love_limes wrote: post #50
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.

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.

If you go out to search someone who can make better decisions about how to fight racism, you will have higher chances of finding that person in a black community, and that is true and okay.

But if you say part of the requirement is to be black, then that is racism.

Making a decision basing on a race. Automatically disqualifying people from other races is racism.

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

#93

Post by Steko »

s9w wrote: post #74
concordDance wrote: post #68

Unfortunate. Looks like there will soon be a crackdown on any HBD discussion.

What's HBD in this context? Urban Dictionary failed me I think.

Human biodiversity, a PC term to rebrand racism. Brought to you by the snowflakes that rebranded nazis and neoconfederates as the "alt-right".

Some discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/BadSocialScience/comments/3cdz2z/rc...

Yep, that HBD-loving subreddit was actually called /r/coontown and was actually worse than you might guess, if possible.

Other commenters in this thread seem to miss it. Says more about them than about reddit, which is much better than it used to be. If anyone misses the coontown crowd they can easily catch up with them at "free speech" havens like voat and gab, which are both worse than most people would guess.

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

#94

Post by senectus1 »

IronWolve wrote: post #80

[flagged]

which antifa is this?

The antifa that is "Anti Fascist" meaning PRO Democracy?

or the antifa that is the invisible boogieman tag that the far right extremists use to group anyone that's not them and attach violent acts to them?

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

#95

Post by freespeechkami »

IronWolve wrote: post #80

[flagged]

Not sure which claim you made here downvoters disagree with. Or perhaps they agree with the claims you made and, disturbingly, believe their entailments are justified and virtuous.

I will say your use of the terms left, right, conservatism, antifa are imprecise.

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

#96

Post by uniqueid »

panpanna wrote: post #42
PunchTornado wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe you should unsubscribe from subs you don't like. plenty of people like violent subs, like justicesurved or others.

Mate I got news for you: they are getting so popular they are all over the front page. I sometimes wonder if Reddit has resulted in a generation completely unable of critical thinking.

You're not alone! I feel exactly the same way. Not only the submission and upvoting of mean-spirited, tasteless content, but the utter sense of entitlement when someone tries to remove it: "it's our right to watch videos of people dying and being maimed!"

At the same time, it seems impossible to find any sentence on Reddit that isn't just a few expletives mixed together with a stock catch phrase.

That combination (ie: of depravity and vapid language) makes me snort with disgust at the idea that people conduct "serious debate" on Reddit.

Maybe we should just embrace the concept of an Internet License, after all.

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

#98

Post by flyinglizard »

Traster wrote: post #84
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…

The "opinions" section is not for fact checked objective pieces of journalistic integrity; it's for stating the personal opinions of important people, whether factually right or wrong.

My opinion remains that NYT had to apologize and take corrective steps for letting a stray wave penetrate the echo chamber.

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

#99

Post by manigandham »

i_love_limes wrote: post #89
manigandham wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

How is it clear? Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist?

What is the basis for your assumption that I have not felt racism, which you seem to be using to say that my perspective is not as valid?

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

#100

Post by freespeechkami »

i_love_limes wrote: post #89
manigandham wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

Consider the following.

I suffer from experiencing the results of x-ism from class y in power. I am the only member of this marginalized group in society, and the only one who has "felt the effects of [x]-ism". I require you to put me in power to absolve the effects of x-ism through methods that include the marginalization (but not x-ism) of groups who are neither suffering from the effects of x-ism or are x-ists themselves.

Do you see the reductio ad absurdum?

Post reply on HN