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

131–140 of 141 posts

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

#131

Post by [deleted] »

Steko wrote: post #93
s9w wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#132

Post by manigandham »

foldr wrote: post #118
manigandham wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> "It's clear that you ... aren't the best person to know about the issues"

That was directed at me specifically. Why are you answering for them?

> "discounting a person who hasn't felt the effects of racism"

That's the claim. How do they know someone hasn't felt the effects? Based on their race? So they're using nothing but race to define and determine who is what - which is quite literally racist.

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

#133

Post by 8note »

j_4 wrote: post #78
8note wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those things are all about exploiting ambiguity though. Such an argument will never be used to say that black people should step down so that a white person can take their place

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

#134

Post by 8note »

blackhaz wrote: post #85
8note wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would say they should go out of their way to solve those issues?

They might not be successful all the time, but they will be some of the time. You can treat their success as floats and doubles, rather than booleans.

Today by government regulation, corporations do take measures for all those problems. Ever seen a warning that a product is carcinogenic?

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

#135

Post by 8note »

kepler1 wrote: post #103
8note wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You defeat your own cause by insisting that only people of the same race can help solve it. "Would you refuse to be treated by a doctor for cancer, unless he himself has had cancer?"

Steve Jobs was treated by someone who didn't know anything about cancer; that didn't turn out well

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

#136

Post by 8note »

manigandham wrote: post #72
8note wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soluti…

If the inequality is along racial lines, it's tautological that racism exists. You don't need more evidence than that

Sure, they should also get representation on the board from other races too. Can they do that without specifically looking for people from those races?

Are they not already hiring board member without considering race? How's that gone? How do black people get consideration based on actions and character as board members, when said experience is gated by connections?

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

#137

Post by DuskStar »

zo1 wrote: post #126
PunchTornado wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you mean by frontpage. it is made only from posts from subs you subscribed to. if you don't like it, unsubscribe. or the thing that bothers you is that other people like it and want to see it

I get /r/politics all the time recommended to me, filled with hateful content. I can't "block" it even though I've looked.

old.reddit.com is the only way to reddit.

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

#138

Post by kepler1 »

uniqueid wrote: post #106
kepler1 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You defeat your own cause by insisting that only people of the same race can help solve it. "Would you refuse to be treated by a doctor for cancer, unless he himself has had cancer?"

I would far prefer, other factors being equal, treatment from the doctor who has first-hand experience of my malady.

I guess doctors who treat end stage dementia need to have had it too?

The wish to have a person of the same race solve the problems of race are understandable. But I would encourage you all to hope for the better situation which is that anyone with good ideas, regardless of race, should be considered as equally as someone else to solve our problems.

Because, I have the feeling that your position leads to bad side effects. Like having very fragile victories. Like black voters (or young people) being very fickle and not turning out to vote because the person who might have good ideas doesn't look like them. Like not engaging or believing what someone says just because of their skin color.

The very things you're fighting against. Take a longer term sustainable position and you will be better for it.

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

#139

Post by DuskStar »

Steko wrote: post #93
s9w wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is HBD verboten because it's factually wrong, or because even if it's right it's repugnant to talk about such things?

If you believe it's factually wrong, is that belief falsifiable? Is there some sort of study or experiment that could convince you otherwise? I'm not talking "plausible" or "morally correct" experiment here - if it would take blinding a few hundred infants of different races and raising them without non-automated human contact and comparing outcomes, that's fine - but it would be nice to know what level of evidence you'd be looking for.

But hey, I'm just some guy who's looking forward to Embryo Selection [0], which kind of depends on some part of intelligence variance being genetic, and who thinks Blank Slate/Tabula Rasa is pretty dead [1]. Maybe I'm wrong, but from that perspective your BadSocialScience link is pretty questionable.

0: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

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

#140

Post by manigandham »

8note wrote: post #136
manigandham wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soluti…

If the inequality is along racial lines, it's tautological that racism exists. You don't need more evidence than that Sure, they should also get representation on the board from other races too. Can they do that without specifically looking for people from those races? Are they not already hiring board member without considering race? How's that gone? How do black people get consideration based on actions and charact…

What do you mean by inequality? Employees not perfectly representing the population? At what level of geographic census does this matter? Any why did you choose racial lines? What about other factors like education which show far more significance?

If a certain group indexes higher or lower in a profession, why is that a problem? Do you consider NBA and NFL teams to also have inequality? By your definition, you must.

Post reply on HN