Subtle -isms at Hacker School • Hacker News Board

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#21

Post by davorak » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:08 PM UTC

fred_durst wrote: post #9

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. When a mistake is vague and hard to understand, there becomes a certain amount of probability involved in making a mistake. Therefore those who are the most active could end up with the most mistakes. In this case, those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". This policy may simply reward the quiet s…

> I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear.

If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples.

They do try to address this issue by making the "social rules are lightweight" and tell students "feel free to talk to faculty."

> those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms".

If the social rules are light then it is more important the student is learning to reduce their use of subtle-ism more then it is that it happens every once in a while.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#22

Post by nicholasjbs » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things.

This is in no way a "shaming ritual." It isn't intended to be one, and it hasn't become one in practice.

I'm one of the founders of Hacker School. I can't stand politics. If these rules actually created the environment you're imagining, we'd get rid of them immediately. Thankfully, we have several years of experience now and we've found that having lightweight social rules makes Hacker School a much better place for everyone, and it's by far the least political environment I've ever been in.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#23

Post by mcguire » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #6

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".

"...someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not"

It's good that you can recognize that you are being offensive and honest enough not to let embarrassment prevent you from reacting appropriately when you are.

[Yes, I rather expected this to be down-voted.]

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#24

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

davorak wrote: post #21

fred_durst wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. When a mistake is vague and hard to understand, there becomes a certain amount of probability involved in making a mistake. Therefore those who are the most active could end up with the most mistakes. In this case, those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". This policy may simply reward the quiet s…

> I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples. They do try to address this issue by making the "social rules are lightweight" and tell students "feel free to talk to faculty." > those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-is…

[deleted]

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#25

Post by davorak » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #6

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".

> The ban on debates is particularly jarring.

That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification, concrete examples, how it has a negative effect.

> if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it.

It has not thing with being or having intent to be homophobic, sexist, etc. It is about some phrases being much more likely to have such intent and meaning in society in general.

It is unrealistic to expect a N random someones hearing a subtl-ism to understand the speaker's internal meaning of a phrase or word. While those N random people should endeavor to not jump to conclusions about the speakers internal meaning, for the most part all they can go off of is how society uses the word/phrase.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#26

Post by mcguire » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:18 PM UTC

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

"Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. They're just another small-p political tool to be used by politically minded people to exert social control."

This is absolutely true. The only thing that will improve someone's manners is their mother slapping them when they got out of hand while growing up. Once they're an adult, their concepts of social roles and the appropriate ways of interacting with others are fixed. The only path of improvement is for them to die off.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#27

Post by ojbyrne » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:18 PM UTC

I thought the significant absence of "age-ism" in the lists of biases to be a somewhat unsubtle "-ism." Because, you know old white men can't be the victim of bias, they're the enemy.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#28

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #2

Mostly unrelated, but I wanted to say that I really enjoyed Kaptur's analysis of Python's import statement during this year's Pycon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS5kXzbsLLQ

[deleted]

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#29

Post by beering » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:20 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #6

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".

Perhaps not the most subtle example:

I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral.

If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#30

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:20 PM UTC

This is an impossible rule to enforce, even lightly, when large portions of the population don't even recognize that those classes of prejudice exist, especially within them or their friends, their family (except their grandparents, which I hear about a lot), their class, their culture, or even their country.

As everybody knows on the internet: The real bigotry is pointing out bigotry.

A real solution is to have an opinion as an organization about specific classes of offense, and a process to deal with them. Not saying what an "-ism" is seems like the opposite of that plan. Instead of creating a minefield, build a path. Kick out anyone who doesn't follow it after having been warned.

Will you be reprimanded for saying something about Libertarians? If not, how about Democrats or Republicans? If not, how about war spending, religion, oil pipelines, or Social Security? Be specific about what the policy prohibits, and why the organization has drawn its particular line.