Racism at a gaming company • Hacker News Board

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#381

Post by Evbn » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:14 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #343

batgaijin wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to try and hijack this a little, just because I'm afraid it won't be seen anywhere else. I don't have a problem with racist/sexist jokes. I do however have a sever issue with healthcare and quality of education being tied to your parents employment and property ownership. I think that is much, much more terrible, as it not only screws over the poor in general, but in particular it really fucks over black pe…

healthcare and quality of education being tied to your parents employment and property ownership Unless I misunderstand you, that's part of reality. Healthcare and education don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to produce them. In order for them to be consumed, they have to either be paid for, or stolen. the most racist things don't target the race of anyone, just their income level Racism has a specific definition,…

"Chavs" and "thugs", are similarly reviled, yet chavs are the same skin tone as the majority. Race and class and style are interconnected.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#382

Post by vacri » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:18 AM UTC

Lukeas14 wrote: post #356

larrybobsf wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employee in the hostile work environment doesn't say that he said "Dumbwhite " - it's an internal response and doesn't indicate that he's fighting racism with racism. Objectively based on the incident presented, it's a simple statement of fact that the co-worker, is dumb, white and a . It's not the job of members of minority groups to educate members of majority groups on their culture. People who aren't members…

Regardless of where he said it, "dumbwhite *" is a phrase with racist intent. Objectively based, "fucking black people" is just a reference to people with a dark skin color but in the context of the English language we all know what it means. I agree it's not his job to educate, and he shouldn't have to. But in reality, most racists are not going to educate themselves. If they did, they probably wouldn't be racists.…

This article might just do that. The article itself already talks about how Steve was completely dismissing everything he had to say. But in written form with a semi-anonymous target, the article will likely filter back to the company and to Steve. In written form, the author gets to say everything he wants to say and why. If Steve reads it, in all likelihood he will dismiss it, but it may also provide a nugget around which he may start to see what he was doing.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#383

Post by Evbn » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #291

swang wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * A black coworker is singled out by another (non-black) coworker with "watch out for that guy, he’s trouble, he talks a lot of shit" I think you read that wrong. The black coworker (Mike) said that in reference to Steve not the other way around. Given that, do you think the black coworker should be fired for saying that about Steve? Is it okay for the Mike to say that about Steve but not the other way around, rega…

No, because Steve is surely not one of a tiny minority of white people in the office, nor is there a clear cultural connotation/prejudice of white people being thuggish. For whatever it's worth to you to know this: being considered thuggish, or violent, or hotheaded, or unreasonable is a hot-button issue for working black professionals. I've had neighbors complain to me that they can't disagree or argue with anything…

Privilege is very poorly understood.

In part that is an ironic consequence of privlege: understanding it can lead to giving it up.

The word has become a "PC" signifier technical "term of art, and not often patiently and respectfully explained to people who need to understand it.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#384

Post by ahelwer » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:21 AM UTC

Lukeas14 wrote: post #356

larrybobsf wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employee in the hostile work environment doesn't say that he said "Dumbwhite " - it's an internal response and doesn't indicate that he's fighting racism with racism. Objectively based on the incident presented, it's a simple statement of fact that the co-worker, is dumb, white and a . It's not the job of members of minority groups to educate members of majority groups on their culture. People who aren't members…

Regardless of where he said it, "dumbwhite *" is a phrase with racist intent. Objectively based, "fucking black people" is just a reference to people with a dark skin color but in the context of the English language we all know what it means. I agree it's not his job to educate, and he shouldn't have to. But in reality, most racists are not going to educate themselves. If they did, they probably wouldn't be racists.…

There's a difference between racism and prejudice. You need to learn it.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#385

Post by erikpukinskis » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:23 AM UTC

cantastoria wrote: post #309

pja wrote: post #276

Just as an exercise, I went and collected all the responses here that matched entries in Derailing for Dummies ( http://derailingfordummies.com ). We have at least: "You're too hostile", with a side order of "You're being Overemotional" and "You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry" plus a few "But that Happens to Me Too!" and plenty of "But I'm Not Like That - Stop Stereotying!". Any more? (I could link to the gui…

I love how someone always hauls out that set of speech codes every time there's any discussion of race or gender in a forum, as if there's a "correct way" to participate in these discussions. You're not our proctor. If you want to let that absurd list of rules dictate how you discuss these issues then go ahead but please don't expect the rest us to follow suit. Hopefully the rest of HN doesn't subscribe to that kind…

If I am having a conversation with my friend about struggles he's having with his boss, and you come in and start talking about how difficult is is to hire good people, you're being an asshole. It's not wrong to talk about hiring, but you're a jerk if you insist on derailing our conversation.

Now being a jerk isn't so awful. But we could just walk away and have our conversation in private, right? It's a free country after all.

But when this kind of derailment happens over and over again to the point that no matter when or where you bring it up, SOMEONE finds a way to derail the conversation, it starts to become oppressive. At that point the community is conspiring to prevent people from discussing racism.

And so we implore you to decide, FOR YOURSELF, that you would like to join us in making space for real talk about racism. The notion of "self-censorship" is nonsense. We all have free will and and we can decide what to speak about. I'm not going to get the government to silence you, I'm asking you to understand the effects of your words and to take responsibility for them.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#386

Post by jere » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:24 AM UTC

I can't even imagine this kind of shit in a professional environment and for some naive reason figured it never happened in a place like SF (I live in a rural North Carolina town).

Maybe this is a dumb response, but I'm immediately led to wonder if this has anything to do with it being in QA. I have a friend who worked in QA at a game company and, while he never mentioned witnessing such racism, he did describe a shocking amount of disrespect and hostility and a widespread attitude that HR would do absolutely nothing to deal with it. Again perhaps it's a silly thought, but maybe when your barriers to entry are "hey do you play videogames" and you're picking up anybody off the street, you aren't going to create the best team.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#387

Post by vacri » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:34 AM UTC

humean wrote: post #226

nollidge wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yo, based on the copious number of comments you've made addressing this I know you're super concerned about that single anecdote from within a larger context, but she didn't get her head bitten off, unless for some weird reason you're reading him as actually saying "Dumbwhite" out loud at her, despite it not being in quotes.

She just got her head bitten off on the public Internet . Some HR dude is probably looking for her right now.

A one-line comment of 'dumbwhite' while not being named now constitutes "having your head bitten off on the public internet"? Calm down, get some perspective.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#388

Post by ucee054 » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:35 AM UTC

w1ntermute wrote: post #368

cameronh90 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a resident of the UK, I think that if we did have a written constitution, regrettably free speech wouldn't be on it. As much as I personally believe in free speech, I do get the impression that the general public here don't.

Which is absolutely fine ― at least then those people wouldn't be able to hypocritically claim free speech as one of their country's positive attributes when trying to distinguish themselves from "barbaric" countries like China or those in the Middle East while also suppressing free speech when it fits their "multicultural" agenda. Moreover, the UK would then get a lot of shit overseas, particularly in America, for b…

[removed because vacri's comment clearly expresses what I was going for incoherently]

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#389

Post by rhizome » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:42 AM UTC

taligent wrote: post #316

tptacek wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because Steve is surely not one of a tiny minority of white people in the office, nor is there a clear cultural connotation/prejudice of white people being thuggish. For whatever it's worth to you to know this: being considered thuggish, or violent, or hotheaded, or unreasonable is a hot-button issue for working black professionals. I've had neighbors complain to me that they can't disagree or argue with anything…

Your definition of thuggish seems a bit off. Thug = a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly. It's akin to calling someone 'white trash'.

It's more akin to calling someone a skinhead.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#390

Post by vacri » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 12:44 AM UTC

w1ntermute wrote: post #290

k-mcgrady wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I find interesting. AFAIK in the US because of free speech nobody can really do anything in law regarding racism. In the UK in the last few years there have been several high profile cases of racial abuse on Twitter and the racists have gotten jail time (one example at the bottom of the article linked below). Protecting free speech is important. However most people probably agree there should be a l…

> In the UK in the last few years there have been several high profile cases of racial abuse on Twitter and the racists have gotten jail time (one example at the bottom of the article linked below). This is one of the advantages of having a written constitution. You can't just do things on a whim that violate basic principles of the country, since they're clearly codified in writing.

I had a British lawyer tell me that in no uncertain terms, the UK has a written constitution. It's just not on a single document named "The Constitution", but a collection of documents covering different things.

As for doing things on a whim that violate basic principles of the country, when it comes to constitutionally-mandated protections against unreasonable search and seizure, I'd rather go through UK airport security than US. Then there's oddities like 'free speech zones', where you can say what you like, but only where you're told to. The second amendment is hardly 'clearly codified' - it's highly ambiguous, yet has such significant impact on US society.

The US consitution has some great stuff in it and was a watershed document, but it's not a magical shield simply because it's written down on a document named 'constitution'.