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

A Difficult Situation

blog.sendgrid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 485 posts

Re: A Difficult Situation

#471

Post by aslkjdfhg »

nsxwolf wrote: post #467
thisone wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech in the US says the government cannot make laws to curtail your speech in most circumstances. Free speech does not, however, protect you from dealing with the consequences of your speech.

But you'd think if we really value free speech in this country, and not just the First Amendment, we wouldn't be so quick to want to suppress the speech of others.

A business has a right to communicate freely as well, for example to make a strong statement by firing an employee.

Getting involved between private parties is generally not productive in the long run, as it necessarily provides the government more control over speech. Private business may abuse civil rights from time to time, but the government has far more potential (and historic precedence) for abuse.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#472

Post by newsoundwave »

devilshaircut wrote: post #445
xshoppyx wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was drinking with an Asian co-worker at work today and something somewhat relevant came up. A 3rd coworker asked my Asian coworker "Are you ok? Your face is red and puffy". And then he stated that Asians (saying all Asians is probably a generalization, but for this example let's assume it is true) lack an enzyme to process alcohol and that Asians are essentially allergic to alcohol. Under this definition, would it…

"they never evolved to possess the same enzyme" ... what? Asians are the same species as every other race. The idea that Asians somehow did not evolve this particular thing has nothing to do with the genetic change over time that causes speciation/evolution. I think you grossly misunderstand evolution and that your remarks are ignorant (and I think many people would claim racist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction

I think you're the one proving ignorant here.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#473

Post by hga »

thejosh wrote: post #395
danielweber wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, because it demonstrates the extent to which a company can be brought to its knees by a group of hostile people organized online I agree. This is frightening. Any concept of a DDOS being a "digital sit-in" are dumb. PlayHaven may also have been trying to avoid the mob, too. Second because hundreds and hundreds of men here and elsewhere seem quite happy to align themselves with an overtly sexist, violently threa…

DDOS is about the same level as fire bombing a business. People like Richard Stallman who disagree (Richard Stallman is stuck in the past) really haven't got a clue that's going on.

Arson is a serious felony because people are often killed by it, inhabitants and/or firefighters.

A DDoS is akin to blocking the entry of customers to a retail establishment.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#474

Post by powertower »

xshoppyx wrote: post #416
powertower wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It depends on your definition of racism racism - dictionary 1.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. 2.Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. This is the original definition of the word - 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 100 y…

I was drinking with an Asian co-worker at work today and something somewhat relevant came up. A 3rd coworker asked my Asian coworker "Are you ok? Your face is red and puffy". And then he stated that Asians (saying all Asians is probably a generalization, but for this example let's assume it is true) lack an enzyme to process alcohol and that Asians are essentially allergic to alcohol. Under this definition, would it…

> this definition, would it be racist to say that all other races except for Asians are inferior at processing alcohol?

I don't follow. How did the co-worker discriminate against the Asian guy?

Now if he did, and said something like - your race is fucking weak, you don’t belong here with us - than yes, that would be racism.

But simply thinking that Asians don't handle alcohol as well as Europeans do, is not racism.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#475

Post by powertower »

drhayes9 wrote: post #419
powertower wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When she says "black people can't be racist towards white people" she is saying "the oppressed cannot, themselves, oppress their oppressors" . That's why they're called "the oppressed". Then why didn't she just say it like that? Because that re-definition is always used to attempt to silence or de-rail whoever points out that racism is not exclusive to the white race. The word racism is already clearly defined. The…

Why didn't she just say it like that? She did! What do you think "racism is a position of the oppressor who has the power" meant? No one said that racism is exclusive to any race. Of course not. That'd be stupid. But it also seems deliberately bull-headed of you to say that "racism" is clearly defined when there are entire academic fields devoted to sussing out what it is. Whole journals. Lotsa books. So, no, let's p…

> What do you think "racism is a position of the oppressor who has the power" meant?

She said that right after saying - Black people CANNOT be racist against White people - not before, on Twitter, for everyone to see. Come on...

That was a clear re-definition attempt of the word.

I know where and when that "re-definition" is always used / what its context is. It's designed to de-rail anyone who is pointing out that whites don't hold exclusivity on racism. Every. Single. Time.

Been there. Seen it.

She never said - I have an argument, and let's just use this definition of this word (and throw out the common usage) when we are talking about it. She clearly wants that word to mean one thing and one thing only.

> But it also seems deliberately bull-headed of you to say that "racism" is clearly defined when there are entire academic fields devoted to sussing out what it is. Whole journals. Lotsa books. So, no, let's proceed as though "racism" is not well-defined.

The word is clearly defined. It's the same definition it was 1000 years ago. It's in the dictionary. Just about every one of them.

Please stop pretending that activists with agendas (and PHDs) can re-define words for the rest of us to better suit their personal ideas and projects.

Your redefinition of the word is not a common one and many more disagree with it than agree with it.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#476

Post by mpyne »

nsxwolf wrote: post #467
thisone wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech in the US says the government cannot make laws to curtail your speech in most circumstances. Free speech does not, however, protect you from dealing with the consequences of your speech.

But you'd think if we really value free speech in this country, and not just the First Amendment, we wouldn't be so quick to want to suppress the speech of others.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to announce to the world that you are an idiot.

It is NOT the freedom to force others not to listen to or act on what you say. I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many people misunderstand this.

Actions have consequences, and this includes speech. It is not the job of any American to support thouse who espouse beliefs they find repugnant, just because they have the freedom to speak up about those same beliefs.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#477

Post by eloisant »

devilshaircut wrote: post #445
xshoppyx wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was drinking with an Asian co-worker at work today and something somewhat relevant came up. A 3rd coworker asked my Asian coworker "Are you ok? Your face is red and puffy". And then he stated that Asians (saying all Asians is probably a generalization, but for this example let's assume it is true) lack an enzyme to process alcohol and that Asians are essentially allergic to alcohol. Under this definition, would it…

"they never evolved to possess the same enzyme" ... what? Asians are the same species as every other race. The idea that Asians somehow did not evolve this particular thing has nothing to do with the genetic change over time that causes speciation/evolution. I think you grossly misunderstand evolution and that your remarks are ignorant (and I think many people would claim racist).

There are evolutionary differences between the races, and the fear of sounding racist makes people say thinks that are untrue scientifically.

Example: When exposed to the sun, white people have a higher risk to get a skin cancer than black people (especially if they live in Australia). On the other hand, black people having a skin that filter more UV and make them more vulnerable to a Vitamin D deficiency (especially if they live in NYC).

This is simply because they evolved to adapt to different climates. Just claiming "no, there is no difference because we're all the same species" is plain wrong.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#478

Post by penrod »

newsoundwave wrote: post #472
devilshaircut wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they never evolved to possess the same enzyme" ... what? Asians are the same species as every other race. The idea that Asians somehow did not evolve this particular thing has nothing to do with the genetic change over time that causes speciation/evolution. I think you grossly misunderstand evolution and that your remarks are ignorant (and I think many people would claim racist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction I think you're the one proving ignorant here.

What is your point exactly? The article you link to states that the flush reaction is genetic, "appears to have been positively selected in the past" and has been hypothesized to "have conferred protection agains certain parasitic infections."

Re: A Difficult Situation

#479

Post by HarryHirsch »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #321
HarryHirsch wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a tech evangelist Aria is the public face of her employer; she is of sufficiently high profile for her person to be indistinguishable from her role as employee. Most everyone agrees that she also picked a fight to raise her visibility - the sexism incident was addressed appropiately by Pycon, at least no one has said anything to the contrary. Her employer made the correct decision in firing her.

Yeah, to be honest, I hadn't been following all the details until today but it was just a childish little temper tantrum. That seems dismissive but if this was genuine, which I don't think it was, she could have handled it in a much more adult way than just taking pictures of people, and making potentially libelous statements.

My take on the issue is that she tried wearing two hats, the hat of feminist activist and the hat of company spokesman, and found that the two are quite incompatible.

Aria will be fine, she has quite an audience, as her blog shows, and she will be continue to be invited. I am just not sure that I like her methods.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#480

Post by bluehat »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #454
bluehat wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The action was the public humiliation of somebody she disagreed with (as he made a sexual joke and she found it inappropriate) rather than handling the matter quietly. The consequential actions included: leaving a number of her own sexual jokes on twitter, making her seem hypocritical, bringing her employer into the fray as agreeing with her actions (probably without their permission), posting a blog post where she a…

How is it humiliation to repost a joke someone made in public? If he's humiliated didn't he do that to himself?

Publicly humiliating somebody is the use of mob rule to get justice instead of the existing structure we have all consented to (ie, the PyCon staff.) It also does not permit the person being humiliated to get in his or her side of the story. Thus, while the men might have done something stupid, inappropriate or even shameful, the public humiliation was done by her because she escalated by inviting mob rule instead of using the official channels.

While using mob rule may be a reasonable second alternative if the existing structure is corrupt and unresponsive as it can change who is in power, it is not an acceptable first solution.

I find a certain amount of delicious irony in the idea that somebody who tried to shame people using mob rule wound up burnt by a different mob. Shame there was so much collateral damage.

Post reply on HN