Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Racism at a gaming company

qu33riousity.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 468 posts

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#341

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #259
JPKab wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant analysis. I am one of the readers who had deep concern for the truthfulness of these observations. If they are true, then he got screwed, royally, and should sue. Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.

The things you think sap his credibility add to his credibility for me; if he was making things up, it would have been easy for him to leave his own politics and sensitivities out of the post to make it more painful for his ex-employer. To me, it reads like he's just venting to his peers. We're the ones making a big deal out of it.

[deleted]

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#342

Post by makomk »

saraid216 wrote: post #268
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…

Well, lines have been drawn. "Fighting words", "obscenity", "clear and present danger", "libel", and so on. There are a lot of checks on speech, some of which people feel go too far. And it's the purpose of the courts to set precedent and handle fuzziness. Gaiman has talked about this quite well: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-... The quotable is "The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a…

Disturbingly, when dealing with free speech the US courts are actually more likely to defend the indefensible. For instance, the US Supreme Court unamously ruled that anti-draft speech - actual political speech - wasn't protected by the First Amendment in Schenck v. United States, and the same again with groups advocating Communism in Whitney v. California.

This precedent stood until Brandenburg v. Ohio when suddenly the Supreme Court reversed itself in order to stop the KKK from being outlawed, deciding that it was now suddenly really important for violent rhetoric to have full First Amendment protection. The KKK was actually much further over the line than the precedent-setting groups - they backed up their talk with a long and bloody history of actual violence and murder against black people. In fact some of the speech that the Supreme Court ruled was protected, such as cross-burning, was actually created as a warning to any black residents that they'd be next if they didn't leave town. Somehow the justices cared more about protecting this than they did about protecting actual, political statements that challenged the status quo.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#343

Post by javert »

batgaijin wrote: post #318
JPKab wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant analysis. I am one of the readers who had deep concern for the truthfulness of these observations. If they are true, then he got screwed, royally, and should sue. Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.

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, and "targeting" someone based on income doesn't meet it (though I don't know what "targeting" means here).

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#344

Post by jspiros »

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…

(This is a comment on the parent comment, not a comment on the original post. Hope that's alright.)

"You start to see that it is also a privilege to be able to argue, even vehemently, without inadvertently confirming a malignant stereotype about your heritage or upbringing."

Very well said. Thanks for articulating this idea. Don't forget that this goes both ways, though.

As a straight white male that grew up in a very progressive college town, with almost all of my friends being progressive socially liberal graduates, I am constantly "educated" on my privilege and dismissed, ala "there goes that (straight) white guy again with his white privilege and lack of understanding", simply for attempting civilized discourse that is anything but blindly supportive of their social and racial views.

I have to question a sociopolitical philosophy that leaves a lot of its followers avoiding dialogue with and dismissing the people who are most likely the closest to sharing their concerns and ideals.

What I'm trying to convey here is that not much attention is paid, particularly by those who otherwise like talking about privilege as a concept, to the privilege of being able to argue. As I believe civilized discourse is a bedrock of our society, this concerns me. "And it should concern you too!"

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#345

Post by Apocryphon »

dos1 wrote: post #282
danielweber wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal for the author to be racist. It's rather illegal for an employer to be racist in their workplace. Yes, I'd rather there were a better whistleblower than this guy. You seldom get things to align perfectly.

Imagine you hear a story about a guy whose house gets burned to the ground. All of his possessions are destroyed. My thought is that you'd naturally feel sympathy for the victim. Now say you found out the victim was himself a serial arsonist who had burned down other houses. Do you still feel as bad for him? In my opinion there is no difference between that story and this one. A racist man is angry that another racis…

The analogy doesn't hold up unless he actually expressed racist views in the workplace. He's not a serial arsonist, he's just a guy who builds bonfires in the privacy of his home.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#346

Post by javert »

nollidge wrote: post #220
humean wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that the woman who stepped on the pendant land-mine had thought the pendant was some kind of Kenyan abacus. Or something. And phrased it very badly, because she sensed subconsciously that she was about to get her head bitten off for being a racist. Naturally, she gets her head bitten off for being a racist...

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.

No, he's right. The basic principle here is, do not talk to "progressive" black people, because you are likely to say something innocuous that they interpret as highly offensive. That is the message being sent here.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#347

Post by wonderzombie »

russelluresti wrote: post #327
tptacek wrote: post #137

Decoder ring for nerds who are unable to read past words like "neoliberal colonizer" without racing to the nearest TEXTAREA: * 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" * Referring to a latino coworker, that same coworker suggests jokes: "Like ‘you’re a mexican whore’ or like ‘your mother’s a Mexican whore?" * The black coworker…

I don't believe the author is trying to unfairly tarnish the company he worked for. I do, however, believe that he cannot be an objective witness of events, as his recollection is being strongly influenced by his own personal biases. You make it seem so nice when you say "the author as an advocate for a fairly specific set of political and social beliefs." But let's be honest, the author is a racist. I get his frustr…

Really? You think he dislikes all white people? Are you sure he doesn't just hate racist white people?

This is another form of white privilege, white people weighing in on what is and isn't racism. White people are the people least qualified to talk about this. Most white people are completely blind to racism except in the most egregious cases. (Spoiler: those are among the least common.)

And let's face it: white people are, by far, the ones who dole it out most often and virulently, the minute they feel threatened by a "thug" (a black man who is either arguing passionately or wearing baggy pants).

All in all, I'm willing to cut this guy more than a little slack! He probably got a more thorough education about the politics and dynamics of race in the first N years of his life as a black male than most white people get in a lifetime.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#348

Post by jvm »

victorbstan wrote: post #299
JPKab wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant analysis. I am one of the readers who had deep concern for the truthfulness of these observations. If they are true, then he got screwed, royally, and should sue. Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.

Are you serious? Or just insensitive? And how many nails are needed until you can safely say he's in his coffin ready to be buried? The issue that I have with the whole "don't even go to college/university, just start a startup" is that most colleges/universities will teach you at least something about gender and racial issues. That's not to say everybody that goes through college doesn't come out racist at the end,…

I've been thinking about this a lot lately since I have a new roommate who went to art school instead of a four-year university and doesn't seem to have any idea when he's saying something racist.

People often seem to think that only STEM degrees teach real skills, but humanities and social sciences teach you to think critically about culture and society, and even though nobody's ever going to pay me to do that, I'd like to think the world's a better place for every person who's had their eyes opened a little bit. The disadvantage of course is that then afterwards, culture and society horrify you at every turn for the rest of your life.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#349

Post by [deleted] »

victorbstan wrote: post #299
JPKab wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant analysis. I am one of the readers who had deep concern for the truthfulness of these observations. If they are true, then he got screwed, royally, and should sue. Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.

Are you serious? Or just insensitive? And how many nails are needed until you can safely say he's in his coffin ready to be buried? The issue that I have with the whole "don't even go to college/university, just start a startup" is that most colleges/universities will teach you at least something about gender and racial issues. That's not to say everybody that goes through college doesn't come out racist at the end,…

[deleted]

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#350

Post by sadface »

jeltz wrote: post #306
pja wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the tone argument. Are you looking to round out the racism discussion derail bingo card, or just completely clueless?

I am not sure he is using the tone argument, since he concludes with "but I agree that the author deserves some justice.". He may just be suggesting that many here at HN attack the author due to the racist tone of the post. Pointing out an ugly tone does not mean you think it invalidates the argument.

The "tone argument" isnt necessarily an attempt to counter the opposing viewpoint. It's a derailment.

"Yes, you're angry but instead of talking about why you're angry let's talk about how the way you expressed your anger is inappropriate".

Its an inappropriate topic change, directing blame at the author when it's really not warranted.

Post reply on HN