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

441–450 of 468 posts

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#441

Post by 89a »

larrybobsf wrote: post #324
Lukeas14 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of how pissed off he may have been, you don't fight racism with more racism. All that does is exacerbate the situation and hurt your credibility. Calling someone a dumbwhite * might feel good but does nothing for your cause. I've always believed the correct response to racism is to educate. Educate his coworkers on the origin and significance of his necklace and why they shouldn't equate the way he dresses…

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…

> it's an internal response and doesn't indicate that he's fighting racism with racism.

HHAHAHA WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING?

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#442

Post by ryanwaggoner »

_pius wrote: post #425
javert wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The calculator necklace thing is what I was referring to. But I'm speaking from personal experience.

But I'm speaking from personal experience. Yeah, you've really got to watch out for "progressive blacks" like me, we're trouble.

Way to make his point.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#443

Post by iy56 »

makomk wrote: post #342
saraid216 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's completely justified. Although they're obviously both bad, harming the national war effort is far more dangerous than racism against a subgroup of citizens. The number of lynchings of black Americans doesn't even come close to the casualties suffered in WWI.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#444

Post by roc »

lmm wrote: post #172
roc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the general point that the author's own baggage nudges him toward an archetype I find exhausting. But the 'educate' bit is on-point. It's similar to womens complaints about "mansplaining". It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And as to the "white people's shit": that does strike…

>It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And that makes it not racist?

Yes? When something is statistically and objectively perpetrated by one group, it's not racist to note as much when someone of said group does said thing.

e.g. "Mansplaining" describes a behavior perpetrated overhwelmingly by men. By not by all men. And it's not right to automatically assume a given man is going to mansplain something.

But when a man starts mansplaining, it's not misandry to note that mansplaining is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#445

Post by lmm »

roc wrote: post #444
lmm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not tit-for-tat racism; it's identifying a common behavior that objectively (and for nigh-on-tautological reasons) is something only really done by white men. And that makes it not racist?

Yes? When something is statistically and objectively perpetrated by one group, it's not racist to note as much when someone of said group does said thing. e.g. "Mansplaining" describes a behavior perpetrated overhwelmingly by men. By not by all men. And it's not right to automatically assume a given man is going to mansplain something. But when a man starts mansplaining, it's not misandry to note that mansplaining is…

So does the same logic apply when e.g. a black person commits a crime?

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#446

Post by Tipzntrix »

sadface wrote: post #350
jeltz wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm just saying as far as history has dictated, guys like MLK Jr. and Gandhi got a lot more support than those who tries to cut completely against the grain like Malcolm X in his earlier days.

As a minority, it is really, really hard to change or rectify the corruption of the majority by trying to fight them head-on. These sort of revolutions worked when the majority of the people overthrew a corrupt minority that had excessive power. However, thinking things over, I'm not sure if the author is even really out to solve the large racial issue in general with this post. I don't think that was his point, so maybe I'm offering suggestions to a goal that he never had in the first place. If this, like most tumblr posts, is just to get it out in writing so he can think clearly and draw attention by the public to the situation, then yes, it works.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#447

Post by nollidge »

javert wrote: post #346
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.

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.

Or maybe the basic principle is to try to understand the perspective of the person you're talking to. Don't speak defensively - be open and willing to acknowledge and apologize and correct yourself when a mistake you make is pointed out to you, rather than retreating into racial anxiety.

Progressive white people too frequently have a fear of saying the wrong thing because they're insecure with their racial views. Read more, gain perspective, learn how much you don't know about the experience of minorities, and then approach conversations with people of color with a deferential attitude.

Maybe that's too much work, but it's the price of tending to a multicultural society that is growing out of the ashes of a monocultural one and I think it's worth it.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#448

Post by nollidge »

javert wrote: post #434
_pius wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I'm speaking from personal experience. Yeah, you've really got to watch out for "progressive blacks" like me, we're trouble.

Again, I'm just recounting my personal experience. FYI, I grew up and still live in the southern US, where race relations are an acknowledged problem, and where social protocols and culture are still more distinct across races than they are within them. And I'm already somewhat bad in general with social protocols. So I'm not saying white people shouldn't talk to black people. I'm saying that, unfortunately ,white pe…

> The basic principle here is, do not talk to "progressive" black people

-- 6 hours later --

> So I'm not saying white people shouldn't talk to black people

Surely you can forgive _pius for assuming you meant what you said.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#449

Post by rmc »

xanados wrote: post #401
groby_b wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. It's classic derailment. "Your damaging your cause by being so aggressive". "You're seeing problems where none exist". You get the same answers when you debate women's issues. And I have no doubt any other minority's issues, too. It's so common there's even a bingo card for it: http://tumblinfeminist.tumblr.com/post/12171070300/notasking...

The existence of bingo cards is not an argument, even if patio has made it so easy for us to generate them. You may find the following article interesting: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html > This tendency reaches its most florid manifestation in the "ideological bingo games". See for example "Skeptical Sexist Bingo", feminist bingo, libertarian troll bingo, anti-Zionist bingo, pro-Zionist bingo, and so on.…

The existance and popularity of bingo cards can tell you how common certain responses are. It is also an attempt to draw your attention to how common the response are, and to mock common responses that fit a mould.

So yes, the existance of bingo cards helps back up the claim that this is "classic derailment".

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#450

Post by JPKab »

psykotic wrote: post #359
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.

> Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility. What nails? You're treating his every statement as suspect by default based on the racial, sexual and political stereotype you are projecting onto him. Judging by the admittedly superficial evidence of your post history, you are a Randian libertarian with a stereotypical dislike of…

Randian libertarian? Really? No, I'm actually quite moderate. I'm a left of center person here in the U.S., and my time in the deep south has made me keenly aware of how horrible the excesses of conservatism can be. However, my time in liberal areas of the nation (northern California, Massachussetts, etc.) has shown me how horribly wrong the classic ivory tower liberalism can go also. I don't dislike people victimized by discrimination. I just dislike systems in which discrimination is fixed by more discrimination. I also recognize how horribly wrong nanny state laws can go.

Look at California's renter protections. They go way, way beyond reason in dragging out an eviction process. As a result, people who would otherwise rent out properties do not, or do so at a much higher price to ensure that only high income people move into said properties. By protecting the poor people from landlord abuses, the result is that decent poor people who pay rent are punished by the indecent poor people who abuse the system and take advantage of squatter rights. Protections always, always come with a cost, hidden or not. I don't think (like Randians do) that this cost should ALWAYS be avoided and we should all go the path of John Galt fantasy land. I just think that too often, ivory tower liberals (by this I mean people who don't work in the private sector and confine themselves to academic and gov't advisory roles) don't see the costs of the protections they chase after, or don't consult with industry to find out what they truly are.

I will be voting for Obama this November. You know, because I hate minorities and women's rights and I worship Ayn Rand.

Post reply on HN