5 ms·

> relative complicity No, this stuff doesn't belong in HN, I don't accept it; this isn't tumblr. Nobody is complicit of anything just for existing. At risk of

> relative complicity No, this stuff doesn't belong in HN, I don't accept it; this isn't tumblr. Nobody is complicit of anything just for existing. At risk of invoking Godwin's law, that's exactly what the nazis said about every jew, including children. > About not being able to sail through life without ever having to. Yeah, let's not pretend you aren't a person who's had so much privilege that the biggest thing you think to fight about online is the diversity quota about some conference in an emerging (bad, but that's IMO) technology.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The instant someone steps in to make comments defending the status quo -- when the status quo is obviously deeply flawed -- they become complicit irrevocably and beyond any hope of later denial. Like you just did with your comment.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Don't confuse defending the status quo with resisting the misguided attempts at breaking it by encouraging something even more deeply flawed.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > The instant someone steps in to make comments defending the status quo -- when the status quo is obviously deeply flawed -- they become complicit irrevocably and beyond any hope of later denial. Counterpoint: no, it doesn't. Because, being against racism against white people or sexism against men is not the same as being in favor of racism against non-white people or sexism against women. You're doing a false dichotomy. > Like you just did with your comment. Good thing I'm not in the USA and I'm not white, then. Now you'll tell me I have "internalized racism." I'm also gay, facing actual discrimination because I can't even get legally married in my country. And none of that makes retaliating to racism and sexism with racism and sexism ok. Nor it does retaliating homophobia with heterophobia, of course.
selllikesybok 9y ago
Straight to Nazis, huh? I'm not talking blood and soil here. I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. But no one's saying (well, not anyone on HN, anyway, and not most people on Tumblr) that white people or me should be persecuted. Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. How you get to Nazis from that, I don't know.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. Still arguing about complicity just out of existence. Last time I'm replying to you because you won't understand, but at least now my comment is just as visible as yours. > And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. Again, calling out unfair benefits is not bad. Attacking the people directly based on their race and sex is. But you do you and keep pretending I'm doing the first, it's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of your narrative after all. > Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. Yeah, no, this isn't what's being argued here, again. Nobody should have inherent advantages over anyone else, that's a non-starter, it's obvious. What I and the others you replied to here is calling out is a direct snub on a group of people because of their race and sex. If you don't see that as racism or sexism (or are selectively pretending that those aren't bad things) doesn't matter: It is racism/sexism and they're bad things.
  - selllikesybok 9y ago
    But how is saying "we want a more diverse group" a snub?
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      Postponing it because they aren't "diverse" enough is a snub.

ubernostrum 9y ago

The instant someone steps in to make comments defending the status quo -- when the status quo is obviously deeply flawed -- they become complicit irrevocably and beyond any hope of later denial. Like you just did with your comment.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Don't confuse defending the status quo with resisting the misguided attempts at breaking it by encouraging something even more deeply flawed.
julianmarq 9y ago
> The instant someone steps in to make comments defending the status quo -- when the status quo is obviously deeply flawed -- they become complicit irrevocably and beyond any hope of later denial. Counterpoint: no, it doesn't. Because, being against racism against white people or sexism against men is not the same as being in favor of racism against non-white people or sexism against women. You're doing a false dichotomy. > Like you just did with your comment. Good thing I'm not in the USA and I'm not white, then. Now you'll tell me I have "internalized racism." I'm also gay, facing actual discrimination because I can't even get legally married in my country. And none of that makes retaliating to racism and sexism with racism and sexism ok. Nor it does retaliating homophobia with heterophobia, of course.

selllikesybok 9y ago

Straight to Nazis, huh? I'm not talking blood and soil here. I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. But no one's saying (well, not anyone on HN, anyway, and not most people on Tumblr) that white people or me should be persecuted. Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. How you get to Nazis from that, I don't know.

julianmarq 9y ago
> I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. Still arguing about complicity just out of existence. Last time I'm replying to you because you won't understand, but at least now my comment is just as visible as yours. > And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. Again, calling out unfair benefits is not bad. Attacking the people directly based on their race and sex is. But you do you and keep pretending I'm doing the first, it's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of your narrative after all. > Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. Yeah, no, this isn't what's being argued here, again. Nobody should have inherent advantages over anyone else, that's a non-starter, it's obvious. What I and the others you replied to here is calling out is a direct snub on a group of people because of their race and sex. If you don't see that as racism or sexism (or are selectively pretending that those aren't bad things) doesn't matter: It is racism/sexism and they're bad things.
- selllikesybok 9y ago
  But how is saying "we want a more diverse group" a snub?
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    Postponing it because they aren't "diverse" enough is a snub.