Reddit Welcomes Michael Seibel to Board of Directors • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit Welcomes Michael Seibel to Board of Directors

#391

Post by mellosouls » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #383

mellosouls wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your comments on race being a reasonable factor are fair enough, you seem rather blind to the absurdity of another upper middle class ivy League democrat from a very elite clique being shuffled into another senior tech position on "my turn" basis being considered meritocratic. Let's not be too rose-tinted here...

I am not blind to it. I specifically mention it repeatedly in this thread. But I am calling out how that isn’t slung at most white executives with the frequency or strength of conviction that is directed at minorities. There is a baseline assumption that certain people must have the baseline competence to warrant getting an opportunity it just so happens the baseline fits things that white men have had greater access…

This is a complicated issue and I don't claim to have a solution, and its not a requirement that I provide one when countering other comments.

I'm just pointing out there are no easy answers and this doesn't seem anything more than a token change to me that shouldn't have needed another black guy being killed to motivate it.

Re: Reddit Welcomes Michael Seibel to Board of Directors

#392

Post by Kuraj » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #372

_pius wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... can this guy even be considered black? He looks like a regular person ..." This subtly dehumanizing idea that certain races are normal while others are irregular is the root of many problems.

Oh stop it. You know full well what he meant.

So what? We should not be normalizing this kind of language.

Re: Reddit Welcomes Michael Seibel to Board of Directors

#393

Post by Supermancho » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 12:25 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #291

Supermancho wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a really poor analogy. The position of captain of on a warship Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse. Making a backdoor point by claiming "poor analogy" is basically noise on noise. It muddles both the original point and fails to make a coherent followup. Defining a different set of criteria for what to compare on, does not change the initial comparison i…

What is the specific 'backdoor point' you take issue with? Comparing a thing to a thing that is not that thing is not 'the height of discourse'. The comment made a point, I made a different point. Which is not necessarily the height of but at least qualifies as discourse. I'm not sure what to make of an objection that ends with exhorting me to define an interpretation.

> Comparing a thing to a thing that is not that thing is not 'the height of discourse'.

That isn't what I said. I will re-quote, that which was stated plainly:

>> Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse.

It's usually not worth it to engage with someone who ignores the content, which they are ostensibly criticizing. I will try to answer the main thrust of your post, as a courtesy (you may interpret it as a rehash).

> What is the specific 'backdoor point' you take issue with?

Creating a second interpretation of an analogy, rather than clarifying (or rephrasing) the point being made.

> The comment made a point, I made a different point

This is no different than posting "I disagree." AND "I think this..." but without clarity in why you disagree on the original point (not even sure you understand what the original point of the analogy was supposed to be), because you chose to piggy-back with similar terms by using a completely different analogy and implying that it invalidates an argument that was never articulated. This is disingenuous, at the core.