6 ms·

This is a bad faith (and/or woefully ignorant) argument about this code of conduct. Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude minoriti

This is a bad faith (and/or woefully ignorant) argument about this code of conduct. Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude minorities from being harassers. It does mean that having (for example) a group dedicated to black people's concerns and telling white people that they are not welcome (or that their opinions are lesser) is not harassment.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Exactly. Likewise for safe spaces, outreach programs, and other such efforts. Perhaps someday, if all these various efforts are successful, it won't be necessary to have such things. But it'll be a lot easier to get to that point if every attempt didn't have to put up with this kind of "but my free speech!!1!" backlash. I'm part of just about every privileged group possible. I don't need a safe space; the world is my safe space. I don't need an outreach program; I have many opportunities others do not. I don't need a group dedicated to my concerns about inclusiveness and being welcoming; I'm already included and welcome by default. The very least I can do is not complain when others try to deal with that, and to recognize that some of the advantages I have will go away in the process, and that's a good thing. Better yet, I can actually help with that whenever I can.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? I'm quite certain it is, which is exactly why I make a point of listening to people who have more of a stake in this than I do. I notice somewhat more than I used to before I educated myself on these issues, but still nowhere near as much as people who live through them personally. > There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. I suspect you suspect wrong, and most of the "pushback" comes from people indignant that their "concerns" are not at the forefront the way they are everywhere else, as well as people who see yet another opportunity to be disruptive. In any case, socioeconomic status is one of many relevant, and it's closely correlated with many other forms of privilege. > There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent. Read http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up , which directly responds to the argument you're making. Such experiences are not "non-existent", but they're also not a sign that there's no problem and everyone else can be safely ignored. There are a lot of other smart, hardworking people who have not had the opportunity to succeed.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      I don't see how you can say that you make of point of listening to people who have more of a stake than you, then in the next breath dismiss a group that you know exists (underprivileged white males). Geekfeminism wiki is a political organization, they're not a source I would trust.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        I'm not dismissing that group; I'm dismissing a class of arguments against codes of conduct. See also "intersectionality": one group discriminated against doesn't get to step on another to advance themselves. > Geekfeminism wiki is a political organization, they're not a source I would trust. And with that ad-hominem dismissal of one of the most concentrated sources of useful information and references, my interest in continuing this discussion with you comes to an abrupt end.
        13thLetter 11y ago
        >I'm not dismissing that group; I'm dismissing a class of arguments against codes of conduct. If you want to actually convince other people, you're going to have to engage with their arguments, not just find ever more elaborate ways of ruling them out of bounds. There is no royal road to victory in a debate, there's just the long, hard slog of talking to a whole bunch of people who disagree with you. >And with that ad-hominem dismissal of one of the most concentrated sources of useful information and references, my interest in continuing this discussion with you comes to an abrupt end. While we're at it, "go to the website run by your political opponents and believe everything they say" also isn't going to get you very far. We're discussing a CoC that was largely written by Geekfeminism and/or its allies; it's highly likely that someone who doesn't like the CoC isn't going to be especially trusting of the people who wrote it, either.
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
        https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ - there's a limit to how far I'm going to argue with people who disagree on fundamental premises and are not willing to question those premises. Leaf-level arguments depending on those premises are not interesting if there's a disagreement on the premises themselves. And anyone who is a "political opponent" of the geekfeminism folks is really not someone I care to have a detailed discussion with. Also, on top of that, this entire discussion is nicely demonstrating why the proposed Code of Conduct included "We will not act on complaints regarding: [...] Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts". This kind of thing takes a large amount of time and energy.
Karunamon 11y ago
Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude minorities from being harassers. A plain english reading of the document suggests otherwise. They don't say "all -isms are banned", they say "we will not act on complaints of X Y and Z". In other words, it would appear to legitimize harassment committed by non-minorities. If they meant your definition, that definition is what should have found its way into the repository. Put another way, if this is a legalistic document that people are going to be expected to adhere to, it needs to be as unambiguous as possible. I really don't think that's asking a whole lot.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Exactly. Likewise for safe spaces, outreach programs, and other such efforts. Perhaps someday, if all these various efforts are successful, it won't be necessary to have such things. But it'll be a lot easier to get to that point if every attempt didn't have to put up with this kind of "but my free speech!!1!" backlash. I'm part of just about every privileged group possible. I don't need a safe space; the world is my safe space. I don't need an outreach program; I have many opportunities others do not. I don't need a group dedicated to my concerns about inclusiveness and being welcoming; I'm already included and welcome by default. The very least I can do is not complain when others try to deal with that, and to recognize that some of the advantages I have will go away in the process, and that's a good thing. Better yet, I can actually help with that whenever I can.

exstudent2 11y ago
Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? I'm quite certain it is, which is exactly why I make a point of listening to people who have more of a stake in this than I do. I notice somewhat more than I used to before I educated myself on these issues, but still nowhere near as much as people who live through them personally. > There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. I suspect you suspect wrong, and most of the "pushback" comes from people indignant that their "concerns" are not at the forefront the way they are everywhere else, as well as people who see yet another opportunity to be disruptive. In any case, socioeconomic status is one of many relevant, and it's closely correlated with many other forms of privilege. > There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent. Read http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up , which directly responds to the argument you're making. Such experiences are not "non-existent", but they're also not a sign that there's no problem and everyone else can be safely ignored. There are a lot of other smart, hardworking people who have not had the opportunity to succeed.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    I don't see how you can say that you make of point of listening to people who have more of a stake than you, then in the next breath dismiss a group that you know exists (underprivileged white males). Geekfeminism wiki is a political organization, they're not a source I would trust.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      I'm not dismissing that group; I'm dismissing a class of arguments against codes of conduct. See also "intersectionality": one group discriminated against doesn't get to step on another to advance themselves. > Geekfeminism wiki is a political organization, they're not a source I would trust. And with that ad-hominem dismissal of one of the most concentrated sources of useful information and references, my interest in continuing this discussion with you comes to an abrupt end.
      - 13thLetter 11y ago
        >I'm not dismissing that group; I'm dismissing a class of arguments against codes of conduct. If you want to actually convince other people, you're going to have to engage with their arguments, not just find ever more elaborate ways of ruling them out of bounds. There is no royal road to victory in a debate, there's just the long, hard slog of talking to a whole bunch of people who disagree with you. >And with that ad-hominem dismissal of one of the most concentrated sources of useful information and references, my interest in continuing this discussion with you comes to an abrupt end. While we're at it, "go to the website run by your political opponents and believe everything they say" also isn't going to get you very far. We're discussing a CoC that was largely written by Geekfeminism and/or its allies; it's highly likely that someone who doesn't like the CoC isn't going to be especially trusting of the people who wrote it, either.
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
        https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ - there's a limit to how far I'm going to argue with people who disagree on fundamental premises and are not willing to question those premises. Leaf-level arguments depending on those premises are not interesting if there's a disagreement on the premises themselves. And anyone who is a "political opponent" of the geekfeminism folks is really not someone I care to have a detailed discussion with. Also, on top of that, this entire discussion is nicely demonstrating why the proposed Code of Conduct included "We will not act on complaints regarding: [...] Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts". This kind of thing takes a large amount of time and energy.

Karunamon 11y ago

Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude minorities from being harassers. A plain english reading of the document suggests otherwise. They don't say "all -isms are banned", they say "we will not act on complaints of X Y and Z". In other words, it would appear to legitimize harassment committed by non-minorities. If they meant your definition, that definition is what should have found its way into the repository. Put another way, if this is a legalistic document that people are going to be expected to adhere to, it needs to be as unambiguous as possible. I really don't think that's asking a whole lot.