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

111–120 of 141 posts

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

#111

Post by dang »

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.

This sort of aggression is not acceptable on HN, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#112

Post by Veelox »

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!

Hey, we are in agreement! It was really bad and racist when Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians people were excluded because of the color of there skin. Hopefully we agree it's really bad and racist when Whites, Hispanics, and Asians are excluded because of the color of their skin. You do agree, right?

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

#113

Post by foldr »

manigandham wrote: post #99
i_love_limes wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

No, obviously not. Otherwise it would be, for example, inherently racist to say that black slaves in 1700 felt racism whereas white colonists did not. In fact, the statement is both obviously true and obviously not racist.

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

#114

Post by manigandham »

foldr wrote: post #113
manigandham wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist? No, obviously not. Otherwise it would be, for example, inherently racist to say that black slaves in 1700 felt racism whereas white colonists did not. In fact, the statement is both obviously true and obviously not racist.

Then I would like that person to clarify how they judge who "hasn't felt the effects of racism", and how they're applying that to me.

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

#115

Post by Veelox »

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…

While your comment is eloquent I have no idea which sweeping generalizations you see as problematic. What problem would empathy solve and how would it solve it?

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

#116

Post by thefz »

uniqueid wrote: post #27
Darmody wrote: post #8

I blocked Reddit on my computer but I decided to unlock it temporarily to read this. "u/kn0thing has resigned from our board to fill his seat with a Black candidate" Now I regret it. I despise this kind of actions taken based on the colour of the skin/nationality/ethnicity/religion.

> 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.

You are assuming that:

1. a nonwhite has SURELY experienced racism first-hand at least once in his life 2. a nonwhite cannot be racist 3. a white cannot have the required sensitivity with the subject

Wow. A selection criteria based solely on a person's skin color is what racism is all about.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

kitsune_ wrote: post #104
concordDance wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the exact kind of gotcha look-at-me-i-am-smart rethoric that I was talking about, you do not engage with what I wrote. "He said 'listen' without technically qualifying it further so let's reframe this so that listen also covers listening to racist view points, something orthogonal to the essence of his post, gotcha!". We both know what you are doing here, and honestly I expect better from people. I have no id…

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by foldr »

manigandham wrote: post #114
foldr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is your claim that only certain groups feel racism? And are these groups defined by their race? If so, isn't that inherently racist? No, obviously not. Otherwise it would be, for example, inherently racist to say that black slaves in 1700 felt racism whereas white colonists did not. In fact, the statement is both obviously true and obviously not racist.

Then I would like that person to clarify how they judge who "hasn't felt the effects of racism", and how they're applying that to me.

No-one is talking about you. They're talking about broadly-defined groups of people (e.g. white people, black people).

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

#119

Post by waheoo »

concordDance wrote: post #58
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?

The odds of the best fit for the position being an african american are quite low. Positions should be assigned to people on the basis of their ability, not their skin colour.

Thats the point. They want equity, not equality.

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

#120

Post by thu2111 »

Darmody wrote: post #56
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.

I am sure and I think we shouldn't fall into this kind of traps. First of all it doesn't guarantee anything. They will pick someone black with the same line of thought that they already have on the board. They won't be selecting, let's say, a black conservative. So in the end, their skin colour would be less important than their ideology but at the same time it'll be the decisive factor, which is stupid. Just as stup…

Yep, nominate Thomas Sowell to the Reddit board and see what happens!
Post reply on HN