4 ms·

You got the opposite vibe from that paragraph than I did, but assuming you're correct about what happened: Why should the onus be on the minority to be require

by kevinh 9y ago

You got the opposite vibe from that paragraph than I did, but assuming you're correct about what happened: Why should the onus be on the minority to be required to have a conversation with everyone who comes up to them and says something ignorant?

Mz 9y ago
I am not talking about an onus on the minority to have a conversation with everyone who comes up to them and says something ignorant. But the current openly hostile position that so many underprivileged people take shuts down real conversation. And it basically assumes that privileged peoples are supposed to somehow psychically know what their lives are like while they refuse to inform the people who are in the best position to make their lives better by being more informed. How on earth are white males supposed to learn what the lives and experiences of women and poc are like if no one will have a conversation with them? Do you think being openly hateful to them opens their minds and makes them more understanding? I don't. FYI, I am not only a woman, I am the top ranked woman here. Maybe there is some correlation between my attitude and the in-roads I am making on HN.
- zepto 9y ago
  I don't think the openly hostile posture is good, nor do I think the general theories of social justice are doing much good anymore. However you actually are saying that 'minorities' need to have conversations with ignorant people. How understanding these ignorant people are is not a function of how 'minorities' respond to them - by which I mean that many people will not be able to have an open mind or become understanding even if they are treated like princes and princesses. One effective way 'white males' can learn more is to find other white males who have successfully navigated this space and learn from them.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Saying that such conversations are needed in the world in no way suggests that there is an onus on specific people to have them with every random asshole who blurts something awful. There is a difference.
    - zepto 9y ago
      Sure - but lots of well meaning people calmly say awful things too, and it's no different to be on the receiving end - maybe even worse.
      - Mz 9y ago
        And if they genuinely are well meaning, they are usually open to getting some push back. It isn't necessary to hate on people in order to inform them "Well, that isn't how it works if you are X." One of the things that most opened my eyes to racism was when I was dealing with the DMV and it was incredibly frustrating. There seemed to be no means whatsoever to fix my issue. And then the black person at the counter walked over to their white boss and straightfacedly lied "She never got her bill." At that point, all I had to do was pay a late fee and, voila, my stint in DMV purgatory was over. (I had driven a thousand miles with expired plates to handle this debacle in person and was still hitting a wall until this person did that.) That clued me that blacks routinely deal with "Fuck you, no, it can't be solved" situations that are not the norm for white people. It made me vastly more informed and sympathetic. It did not make me feel alienated. I know far too many people on the internet who claim they want the world to be a better place, but by their actions it is clear that they take it as a given that the lord of the flies pecking order bs is just how the world works and cannot be solved. They just want to change who gets shit upon and gets to do the shitting. Is it any wonder that people in privileged positions aren't very friendly to their proposition that "No, YOU should be the designated toilet of the world, and I should be one of the people who gets to shit on you!" I would like to see a world in which we all agree that shitting on other people is not ok, no matter who they are.
        zepto 9y ago
        Seems like you think that the legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism is equivalent to unkind words on the internet. Personally I'd only call one of these 'shitting on other people'.
        Mz 9y ago
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > FYI, I am not only a woman, I am the top ranked woman here. How do you know? I mean, it's not like HN profiles have mandatory gender field, and there are higher-ranked profiles than yours that don't link to external profiles or provide real names from which (risky) guesses can easily be made about gender, and whose comment/post history doesn't, on a quick review, give any direct indication of the user's gender.
  - Mz 9y ago
    I spent some time gathering data because I was getting what seemed to me to be a fuckton of excess pushback for someone who was a big fat nobody with a paltry amount of karma. There is a quick and dirty summary of the data here: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/01/some-raw-data-on-prominence-of-women-on.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/01/some-raw-dat... I usually couch it in terms of "I appear to be the highest ranked openly female member here" because, no, there is no absolute way to know. But I have also been saying that for something over two years and, so far, no one has jumped up and said "Nope! HERE is a link to HNmembername who is openly female and outranks you!" Given that this is HN, I consider that fact to be probably strong evidence that no one knows of any openly female members who outrank me. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility that there is a woman with more karma who is actively hiding her gender. But even if there is, that still makes my typical framing -- apparently highest ranked openly female member -- an accurate statement. Edit: Just as an FYI, I upvoted you. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask and the framing is perfectly reasonable. I don't know why people are downvoting you. That sucks. Meanwhile, some other comment that is being genuinely dismissive of me and the pertinence of my "rank" here is being upvoted. And that sucks even more.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- epmaybe 9y ago
  How does your rank on HN as a female matter for us to get your point? To me, the FYIs (which I have seen at least two of your comments in this thread) aren't letting your comments stand on their own merits. For what it's worth, your point makes sense and I agree with it. However, it didn't seem like the author of the article had a hateful experience, so much as an awkward one.

by kevinh 9y ago

Mz 9y ago

I am not talking about an onus on the minority to have a conversation with everyone who comes up to them and says something ignorant. But the current openly hostile position that so many underprivileged people take shuts down real conversation. And it basically assumes that privileged peoples are supposed to somehow psychically know what their lives are like while they refuse to inform the people who are in the best position to make their lives better by being more informed. How on earth are white males supposed to learn what the lives and experiences of women and poc are like if no one will have a conversation with them? Do you think being openly hateful to them opens their minds and makes them more understanding? I don't. FYI, I am not only a woman, I am the top ranked woman here. Maybe there is some correlation between my attitude and the in-roads I am making on HN.

zepto 9y ago
I don't think the openly hostile posture is good, nor do I think the general theories of social justice are doing much good anymore. However you actually are saying that 'minorities' need to have conversations with ignorant people. How understanding these ignorant people are is not a function of how 'minorities' respond to them - by which I mean that many people will not be able to have an open mind or become understanding even if they are treated like princes and princesses. One effective way 'white males' can learn more is to find other white males who have successfully navigated this space and learn from them.
- Mz 9y ago
  Saying that such conversations are needed in the world in no way suggests that there is an onus on specific people to have them with every random asshole who blurts something awful. There is a difference.
  - zepto 9y ago
    Sure - but lots of well meaning people calmly say awful things too, and it's no different to be on the receiving end - maybe even worse.
    - Mz 9y ago
      And if they genuinely are well meaning, they are usually open to getting some push back. It isn't necessary to hate on people in order to inform them "Well, that isn't how it works if you are X." One of the things that most opened my eyes to racism was when I was dealing with the DMV and it was incredibly frustrating. There seemed to be no means whatsoever to fix my issue. And then the black person at the counter walked over to their white boss and straightfacedly lied "She never got her bill." At that point, all I had to do was pay a late fee and, voila, my stint in DMV purgatory was over. (I had driven a thousand miles with expired plates to handle this debacle in person and was still hitting a wall until this person did that.) That clued me that blacks routinely deal with "Fuck you, no, it can't be solved" situations that are not the norm for white people. It made me vastly more informed and sympathetic. It did not make me feel alienated. I know far too many people on the internet who claim they want the world to be a better place, but by their actions it is clear that they take it as a given that the lord of the flies pecking order bs is just how the world works and cannot be solved. They just want to change who gets shit upon and gets to do the shitting. Is it any wonder that people in privileged positions aren't very friendly to their proposition that "No, YOU should be the designated toilet of the world, and I should be one of the people who gets to shit on you!" I would like to see a world in which we all agree that shitting on other people is not ok, no matter who they are.
      - zepto 9y ago
        Seems like you think that the legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism is equivalent to unkind words on the internet. Personally I'd only call one of these 'shitting on other people'.
        Mz 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
> FYI, I am not only a woman, I am the top ranked woman here. How do you know? I mean, it's not like HN profiles have mandatory gender field, and there are higher-ranked profiles than yours that don't link to external profiles or provide real names from which (risky) guesses can easily be made about gender, and whose comment/post history doesn't, on a quick review, give any direct indication of the user's gender.
- Mz 9y ago
  I spent some time gathering data because I was getting what seemed to me to be a fuckton of excess pushback for someone who was a big fat nobody with a paltry amount of karma. There is a quick and dirty summary of the data here: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/01/some-raw-data-on-prominence-of-women-on.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/01/some-raw-dat... I usually couch it in terms of "I appear to be the highest ranked openly female member here" because, no, there is no absolute way to know. But I have also been saying that for something over two years and, so far, no one has jumped up and said "Nope! HERE is a link to HNmembername who is openly female and outranks you!" Given that this is HN, I consider that fact to be probably strong evidence that no one knows of any openly female members who outrank me. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility that there is a woman with more karma who is actively hiding her gender. But even if there is, that still makes my typical framing -- apparently highest ranked openly female member -- an accurate statement. Edit: Just as an FYI, I upvoted you. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask and the framing is perfectly reasonable. I don't know why people are downvoting you. That sucks. Meanwhile, some other comment that is being genuinely dismissive of me and the pertinence of my "rank" here is being upvoted. And that sucks even more.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
epmaybe 9y ago
How does your rank on HN as a female matter for us to get your point? To me, the FYIs (which I have seen at least two of your comments in this thread) aren't letting your comments stand on their own merits. For what it's worth, your point makes sense and I agree with it. However, it didn't seem like the author of the article had a hateful experience, so much as an awkward one.