5 ms·

It is never right to attribute negative characteristics to an entire race or gender. Anyone who does so under any circumstances will find me speaking in opposit

by s_q_b 10y ago

It is never right to attribute negative characteristics to an entire race or gender. Anyone who does so under any circumstances will find me speaking in opposition. -------------- EDIT in Reply: 1. Your comment is, however unintentionally, quite interesting. Never have I seen someone so self-righteously accuse another of self-righteousness. The closest analogy I can devise is an infinite regression of ignorance, a perfectly formed fractal of feces. Maintaining that level of willful lack of self-awareness must be exhausting. My goodness. 2. Overt racism is a heuristic I use to determine whether to take a person's other viewpoints seriously. This article did not pass that test.

wycats 10y ago
That hasn't happened here, so your opposition is, itself, raising spectres.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  The writing is starkly clear. The piece is also listed above, so I am confident the other readers can reach their own conclusions. Secondly, if any spectres be raised, so be it. Scorn is a badge of honor if earned when speaking the truth.
  - wycats 10y ago
    But receiving scorn is no evidence of speaking the truth. A death spiral looms from this confusion.
karmajunkie 10y ago
> Never have I seen someone so self-righteously accuse another of self-righteousness. Either you don't hang around HN much or you're just prone to hyperbole. > Overt racism is a heuristic I use to determine whether to take a person's other viewpoints seriously I'm curious whether it was the tacit acknowledgement of the dominance of white males in technology or some other device in the writing which triggers this reflex for you. If the former, that's a pretty low bar for that, and of course a totally disingenuous accusation.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  1. Both. 2. The "dominant" vs. oppressed false diachotamy gives you away as an ideologue with whom I cannot have a productive discussion. At one time or another we are all the oppressed and we are all the dominant. This ridiculous caste system isn't some static hierarchy that was ordained by God or an inevitability of our history. Race, class, and gender are societal constructions which must be actively sustained to survive. Yet you insist on utilizing the very same categories drawn by racists, which only reinforces the persistence of hierarchy you claim to despise. Finally, dismissing every contrary argument by attributing identity-based motives to your opponent is facile. Categorizing all those who disagree with you as stooges of some eternal shadowy "dominant" cabal is the exact type of unscientific babble that constitutes every conspiracy theory. Most importantly, it is also a very convenient way to turn every argument into an ad hominem based on the race/gender of the speaker. This is what happened: I read a post written by someone who broadly stereotyped millions of people in a racial and gendered fashion, and I raised an objection. It was very simple. The question is, why are you so desperate to make this about "white male dominance"? This is about what the author stated. Is it because you realize your vacuous arguments cannot stand on their own merits, or because you are too insecure to confront the intellectually arid world view which you clutch like a safety blanket? Or do you merely think that the "dominant" persons (as determined by you) simply have no right to a voice at all?
  - karmajunkie 10y ago
    >> You deliberately manipulated your audience by playing on their fears of being deemed discriminatory, their anxiety over real ethnic tensions, and perhaps most egregiously, you intentionally encouraged gender stereotyping of women for your own purpose of obtaining attention. > The question is, why are you so desperate to make this about "white male dominance"? This is about what the author stated. You were the one who came out of the gate gunning for that argument. The author merely referenced her own early misgivings about her place in the industry, which were (and remain) entirely valid, especially considering the piece was about her own experience. Using a lot of words to say the same thing repetitively doesn't make your argument any stronger. It just makes it a little harder to parse.

by s_q_b 10y ago

wycats 10y ago

That hasn't happened here, so your opposition is, itself, raising spectres.

s_q_b 10y ago
The writing is starkly clear. The piece is also listed above, so I am confident the other readers can reach their own conclusions. Secondly, if any spectres be raised, so be it. Scorn is a badge of honor if earned when speaking the truth.
- wycats 10y ago
  But receiving scorn is no evidence of speaking the truth. A death spiral looms from this confusion.

karmajunkie 10y ago

> Never have I seen someone so self-righteously accuse another of self-righteousness. Either you don't hang around HN much or you're just prone to hyperbole. > Overt racism is a heuristic I use to determine whether to take a person's other viewpoints seriously I'm curious whether it was the tacit acknowledgement of the dominance of white males in technology or some other device in the writing which triggers this reflex for you. If the former, that's a pretty low bar for that, and of course a totally disingenuous accusation.

s_q_b 10y ago
1. Both. 2. The "dominant" vs. oppressed false diachotamy gives you away as an ideologue with whom I cannot have a productive discussion. At one time or another we are all the oppressed and we are all the dominant. This ridiculous caste system isn't some static hierarchy that was ordained by God or an inevitability of our history. Race, class, and gender are societal constructions which must be actively sustained to survive. Yet you insist on utilizing the very same categories drawn by racists, which only reinforces the persistence of hierarchy you claim to despise. Finally, dismissing every contrary argument by attributing identity-based motives to your opponent is facile. Categorizing all those who disagree with you as stooges of some eternal shadowy "dominant" cabal is the exact type of unscientific babble that constitutes every conspiracy theory. Most importantly, it is also a very convenient way to turn every argument into an ad hominem based on the race/gender of the speaker. This is what happened: I read a post written by someone who broadly stereotyped millions of people in a racial and gendered fashion, and I raised an objection. It was very simple. The question is, why are you so desperate to make this about "white male dominance"? This is about what the author stated. Is it because you realize your vacuous arguments cannot stand on their own merits, or because you are too insecure to confront the intellectually arid world view which you clutch like a safety blanket? Or do you merely think that the "dominant" persons (as determined by you) simply have no right to a voice at all?
- karmajunkie 10y ago
  >> You deliberately manipulated your audience by playing on their fears of being deemed discriminatory, their anxiety over real ethnic tensions, and perhaps most egregiously, you intentionally encouraged gender stereotyping of women for your own purpose of obtaining attention. > The question is, why are you so desperate to make this about "white male dominance"? This is about what the author stated. You were the one who came out of the gate gunning for that argument. The author merely referenced her own early misgivings about her place in the industry, which were (and remain) entirely valid, especially considering the piece was about her own experience. Using a lot of words to say the same thing repetitively doesn't make your argument any stronger. It just makes it a little harder to parse.