Live data from Hacker News

God's Lonely Programmer

motherboard.vice.com

281–290 of 339 posts

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to discredit your point, as I do believe it's still has some validity, but that study is 12 years old and I'd like to think there has been some progress since then... You know like maybe having a president with the name Barack Obama.

You figure a black person being elected President makes racists stop being racist? 'Cause I know some racists, and I can tell you that the opposite is true.

I have no doubt there are children today that are not growing up to become racist because of him. And I have no doubt there is less racism occurring, amongst todays' adults, because of him.

Hence the word "progress" and the reason why relying on decade old social studies is not the best idea.

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#282
We have the ability to filter. Due to his condition, he does not. We should embrace the good and productive that comes from his work, without judgment, and use our filters to deflect and ignore the bad.

(Note: this heuristic applies to almost any human, regardless of recognized DSM status. We'd be well-served to save our breath and embrace this outlook.)

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#283
post #268
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He apparently knows a thing or two and gets stuff done. I'd hire him.

What would you do when your black employees object to what he would say to them? The words "hostile work environment" come to mind.

I worked with an administrative assistant with Tourette's syndrome who would routinely blurt out observations about the sexual/physical characteristics of female co-workers, provoking "managers" passing by to take the opportunity to assert their inclination to be the strong gentleman and challenge this poor fellow to a fight for m'lady's honor.

It only took a moment of explanation and de-escalation to clue them in to what was going on, and the situation was defused, no matter how many more "nice tits" the administrator busted out in public.

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> find an open-minded employer who might listen to the situation and be willing to give Terry a shot? When you strip away the notion, or often the facade, that jobs are not a form of enslavement then you might be asking yourself the question I'm asking: Why would you want to do that to him? It's not like he hasn't been able to find a purpose in life to keep himself happy. Or do you really know anything about him or w…

That's an incredibly interesting take. Flipping the script, is it useful or ethical to find a way to help him monetize his purpose in life to his benefit?

Sure, but probably not in the form of a traditional job with an employer where he would likely endure mental trauma over mistakes being made at a job that he depends on for money.

The sad part that most people do not understand is that if he's on 'assisted living' and gets a job he may no longer be eligible for it ever again, even if it doesn't work out.

So the idea to push a job on him could actually be the death of him and what's worse: chances are good that he might even do it to his own detriment.

Edit: reduced unintended tone. ;)

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#286
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You figure a black person being elected President makes racists stop being racist? 'Cause I know some racists, and I can tell you that the opposite is true.

To me, the best demonstration of continued racism, is that there's no way Obama - being half-black, half-white - would have been able to get away with self-identifying as white.

That's not really an aspect of racism. It's the way races are (poorly) defined. He qualifies as black unless we can kill the meme of races entirely, even in a world that had no prejudice.

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the perspective. I'm here to learn and to understand. It's very difficult to understand this, but I can see how it might be true. If that's the case, the only alternative seems to be not to offer help to anyone. Is that preferable, especially if the entire world starts behaving like that? It just seems like "Hey, do you need any help?" can't possibly be a negative. But I'm willing to accept I could be wr…

Let's jump this over to a topical thought experiment. A new programmer is hired in your office, who happens to be a woman. She seems to doing ok in her new job, getting things done. She seems fine with it. Her boss seems fine with it. Neither her nor her boss show any signs of dissatisfaction with her work situation. Do you go by every now and then while she's working and ask "Hey, do you need any help?" You don't ha…

I think it's the habitual nature that's the problem there. So you haven't really proposed a scenario where the initial asking is a problem.

I won't comment on the rest of the scenario because it's intentionally very different and not an analogy.

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of "whiteness" in discrimination actually isn't very well correlated to skin color; e.g. Irish people until recently were considered to be "black", and in the UK, still kind of are. Some non-white people like Asians are often considered white in many contexts (like tech hiring in the USA). Try applying for a job in Beijing as a Uighur and even though your skin is whiter than Han, you are still going to…

If 'white' doesn't refer to skin color, then you are just babbling worthless information and making racism worse. You are essentially making 'white' mean 'qualified potential employees'.

I'm only stating the obvious that racial bias has historically transcended skin color even if the terms "white" and "non-white" are still used. References:

http://professorwhatif.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/what-if-your...

> Irish, Jewish, Italian, and Eastern Europeans with light/white skin have at various historical periods not been considered white. The changing rules and requirements regarding who gets to be in the white club are related to systems of power and privilege. This is why whiteness is defined by exclusion rather than inclusion.

> While US history quite clearly excluded Asians, Indigenous Peoples, and African Americans from the white category, Europeans have been excluded, included, or partially included in the white club depending on religious belief, economic climate, labor skills, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm

> The racial divisions between white and Asian, once so stark and to many almost unbridgeable, are quickly fading away. Marriages between Asians and whites are increasingly common; while anti-Asian bigotry exists, it is (at least among whites) much rarer than it was only one or two generations ago. As with the experience of the American Irish, Italians, Jews, and many other groups, the Asian experience shows that racial divisions and hostilities can subside over time.

Askhistorians has a bunch of good discussions on the issue:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s62iy/europe...

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cg6e0/when_a...

E.g.:

> I attended a lecture on this. Essentially, whiteness is a malleable concept that includes or excludes different races over time. While we perhaps naively think that "white" is based on the color of skin or continent of origin, Mexicans, for example, of entirely Spanish (i.e. European) descent are considered non-white. But they didn't use to - other than the Census of 1930, they were considered white in the early 20th Century. On the most recent census, 49% of Latinos checked "White" as their race. (Most of the rest checked "other".)

> Jews, Italians, Irish, etc., are all races that were considered non-white (which meant English in the most restrictive use of the word) to begin with, but "became white" over time. In the case of the Irish, this happened when Irish people started appearing in prominent places - sports athletes, police commissioners (the Philadelphia police department had a lot of Irish in it), politicians, and so forth. With the Jews, it happened when they too moved up the social ladder, becoming one of the most educated subgroups in America (Jews have about 5 times the average number of academic professors). I'm not familiar with the Italian story.

Re: God's Lonely Programmer

#290
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. People may say racist things without necessarily being racist. The difference between "being X-ist" and "saying X-ist thing" is basically predicated on having a "persistent belief that X" or having a "momentary belief that X". (I'm using "belief" in the philosophical sense.)

I don't believe that you should be downvoted. If you read Paul Graham's essay http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html , it is clear that our current hypersensitivity to racism is a current moral fashion. You're not allowed to be racist, you're not allowed to think racist things, you're not even allowed to question our society's chosen approach to racism. Which is just silly. Facts remain facts even if we don't like them.…

[per PG's essay] it is clear that our current hypersensitivity to racism is a current moral fashion

Is it, actually? Or is it a stance acquired after centuries of marginalization? Consider PG's examination of social issues:

Changes between the past and the present sometimes do represent progress. ... But this becomes rapidly less true as you move away from the certainty of the hard sciences. By the time you get to social questions, many changes are just fashion. The age of consent fluctuates like hemlines.

I don't expect that marginalization of entire groups of people will be in vogue again any time soon. Note that the negation of one of PG's many (LOL) weasel-worded statements ("many changes are just fashion") covers policies that were ridiculous (like women's suffrage) or barbaric (child labor and slavery).

No rational person -- PG included -- would support regressing on these issues. It's highly unlikely that his article supports your claim (or any other claim re: sensitivity on national/global socioeconomic tragedies).

Here's a counterargument: maybe the ban on racism by civilized, well-adjusted people isn't hypersensitive silliness, but the imposition of a new standard for discourse based on respect for fellow people?

Post reply on HN