Racism at a gaming company • Hacker News Board

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#461

Post by rmc » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 9:14 AM UTC

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.…

I'm not really sure what that article is saying, maybe "Placeholder / bingo card arguments make it hard to have a rational intellegent debate/conversation". Which is technically true, it does make it hard to have an intelligent conversation.

However, in the vast majority of conversations about topics like this, the debate is not intelligent. The same old tied tropes and clichés come out. Many different people have commented "But he's racist too!" (on a recent post about gender at a tech conference many people dismissed the author for being angry).

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#462

Post by javert » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 8:55 PM UTC

nollidge wrote: post #459

javert wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking what I said out of context. I said: 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. As I clarified in my last post, my point was that it is regrettable that the blogger "sent the message" he did. By the way, when you talk about me forgiving _pius, you ar…

So you're saying he's deliberately but perhaps covertly telegraphing the message "white people, don't talk to me"? Because if not, "don't talk to progressive blacks" is the message you took away not the one he sent . > I am on the receiving end of blame, not the giving end. Oh, for real? Who blamed you for what? Going back and re-reading your previous post: > But I do know that accusing white people of racism for cle…

So you're saying he's deliberately but perhaps covertly telegraphing the message "white people, don't talk to me"?

No, I did not say that. I don't think he was sending that message deliberately. (As an aside, the message wasn't "don't talk to me.)

Oh, for real? Who blamed you for what?

You and _pius are clearly accusing me of racial insensitivity.

It may be non-racist, but it's still culturally tone-deaf.

I mean, I do think the "message" I claimed was being sent was stated overbroadly by me. But, for example, I definitely would not ever talk to a black person about their clothes if they were not wearing clothing I was familiar with, out of fear that they would be offended - even by a compliment. Even if I said something like, "That outfit looks really good on you," they'd like take my social awkwardness as a sign that I was somehow making fun of them (which I would never do). Or they'd consider me incapable of rendering a judgement about a style of fashion that I'm not familiar wth, and just be insulted.

Why should he make your distress a priority when you care none for his?

I never said that. In fact, if I didn't care about race relations and want them to be better, I wouldn't have commented in the first place. And I care about race relations because I care about people. I don't want anybody to be distressed.

needlessly distressful (racist, dehumanizing, othering, outgroup-reinforcing) things for the author

If you think the calculator incident was racist or dehumanizing, as described, then I can see why you would think I don't care about that guy's distress. But it was not racist or dehumanizing. It may have made the author feel like part of an "outgroup" as you say, but that was not intentional. At least as I recall the incident being described in the post. It was just some really naive person who made a mistake. I thought that was obvious from the description. And you may disagree with this, but if it was just a naive person who made a mistake about what the guy was wearing, it was not racism.

I'm not sure if I want to continue this discussion, but I will read any response and may or may not respond.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#463

Post by boboblong » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 10:37 AM UTC

I am racist and sexist and I'm very confident in the quality of my understanding of the world compared to that of egalitarians. I strongly believe that the present received wisdom in the West regarding race and sex will be viewed in the future as some sort of mass delusion, or possibly a kind of atheistic Christianity-substitute heavy on self-flagellation.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#464

Post by russelluresti » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 5:03 AM UTC

wonderzombie wrote: post #347

russelluresti wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

His common references to ALL white people as acting a certain way and use of terms like "dumbwhite*" make it pretty clear that he dislikes (or is at least prejudice against) all white people. If a white person were to say any of those things about black people, asian people, or any other people, they'd be racist - what's the difference when a black person says it?

It's not white privilege to be able to weigh in on what is and isn't racism. It's the privilege of every person, regardless of race, to have an opinion.

Do you have evidence to support your claim? Are you talking about pure numbers or per capita? Are you limiting your numbers to a specific country? Do not use numbers as an argument unless you have actual numbers to back up your argument.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#465

Post by russelluresti » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 5:07 AM UTC

wonderzombie wrote: post #357

russelluresti wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, bonus points for flipping it around suggesting the real racist here is the victim. Now it's rhetorically impossible to point out that white people have a sense of privilege without also being racist oneself! Well played.

You can claim a white person is a racist, and I have no doubt that some of the people he encountered were racists, but he is obviously a racist as well.

Him being a racist doesn't mean the white people he was interacting with weren't racists too. I'm just saying that it becomes a factor in his credibility, because he makes it obvious that he did not remain impartial while working there.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#466

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 5:07 AM UTC

wonderzombie wrote: post #357

russelluresti wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, bonus points for flipping it around suggesting the real racist here is the victim. Now it's rhetorically impossible to point out that white people have a sense of privilege without also being racist oneself! Well played.

[deleted]

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#467

Post by russelluresti » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 5:11 AM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #394

russelluresti wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But once black people stop being racist, then we can talk about white people being racist, right?

I'm not saying we can't talk about it - that's fine. I'm just pointing out that it is tough to remain impartial when you have to factor in your own biases.

And, again, if you're going to tell me that racism is bad, you can't do it while being a racist yourself. Well, I suppose you can, anyone has the right to say what they want, but you have to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy.

Re: Racism at a gaming company

#468

Post by russelluresti » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 5:14 AM UTC

cpeterso wrote: post #399

russelluresti wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> his recollection is being strongly influenced by his own personal biases. He wisely documented all the abusive incidents. He doesn't need to "recall" anything.

I disagree that the incidents were documented. Unless there is audio or video recordings of the incidents, where we can see, through an impartial view, exactly what the people he was interacting were doing and saying, we have to hear about them through his recollection of events. As he writes these events for us to read he's recalling what those people said or did, and his memory of those events is influenced by his own biases.