5 ms·

That post is something else. Are we really believe that an internship for Pacific Islanders constitutes a plot against White Men? At least you didn't go all "Cu

by dnomad 8y ago

That post is something else. Are we really believe that an internship for Pacific Islanders constitutes a plot against White Men? At least you didn't go all "Cultural Marxism" like Damore. I do hope that this is the hill that the anti-diversity agenda chooses to die on. The logic here is so transparently hypocritical, self-serving and stupid that I suspect it will really crystallize the "sides" involved here. Similar to the notion that gays didn't really lack the right to marry or that "all lives matter", the argument betrays a kind malicious rejection of equality and justice that really demonstrates in a very clear way what these people are really about. So I say, go for it. Protest against every attempt to include minorities. Resign when they announce the next "Women in Technology" event. Raise hell if some damn SJW dares to include a Code of Conduct that forbids sexual harassment. It will be very interesting to see where this strategy takes you.

naasking 8y ago
> The logic here is so transparently hypocritical, self-serving and stupid that I suspect it will really crystallize the "sides" involved here [...] So I say, go for it. Protest against every attempt to include minorities. See, this isn't being charitable to those who disagree with you, and your attitude is a big problem with why these issues just get more inflammatory. Consider the fact that people who oppose such efforts aren't your enemy, they simply disagree with your allegedly infallible logic. Few people are actually against "minorities". In the end, the smallest minority is the individual. This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belong to. Privilege is a statistical metric, but individual experience is not causally dictated by such metrics. Group-specific efforts wouldn't be so controversial if they weren't pushing a narrative that denies this basic fact. This should be obvious from the outcry you'd get from trying to organize, say, a male-only tech event, or an Asian-only tech event. Might seem silly given the demographics in these industries, but you'd get serious blowback just from the effort.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belong to. Privilege is a statistical metric, but individual experience is not causally dictated by such metrics. But this is nonsense. How can any reasonable person believe that one's "group" has absolutely no impact on one's life experiences? You're literally saying "one individual's experience as a member of X group has no impact on one's individual experience." Does that really parse in your head? Look, there's no there there and you can devise silly rationalizations all day. The only thing that matters are the ends. The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? People should just be honest about their aims and end goals and we can skip the endless rationalizations. I find it all a bit too theatrical. Like internships for Pacific Islanders are absolutely harmless. They literally cause zero harm. There are few things in this world absolutely harmless but this is one of them. But here they are being protested as discrimination! It turns out any attempt to be inclusive is decried as some betrayal of "individual experience," whatever that actually means and we get flamboyant resignations in response. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.
  - code_sloth 8y ago
    > The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? Don't think anyone said that. Quite the opposite. You read what you wanted to read, and arrived at that conclusion all by yourself. > I find it all a bit too theatrical. Yes, and you're on stage.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    >The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? This is not a charitable way to interpret the actions of others. Because of the unfortunate treatment of certain people in the past, it doesn't justify poor treatment of others now. The ends do not justify the means. To quote Gandhi: "They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”
- ac0821 8y ago
  > In the end, the smallest minority is the individual. Stop reading Rand. Start reading Hegel.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Are you actually going to address the points I raised, or are you just here to make unjustified inferences about my philosophical background?
    - youdontknowtho 8y ago
      If there is a historical defcit of resources that have been denied to a group is it ok to help that group recoup some of that deficit?
      - naasking 8y ago
        Probably to some extent, but even assuming it's true, I think you'll agree that some means of doing so are more just and more effective than others.
    - ac0821 8y ago
      My mistake; I assumed a Randian background as the whole "individual as smallest minority" thing is nearly a direct Rand quote. That said, if you approach it critically, I think you'll find it addresses the point you made. The reductionist philosophy that posits collective benefits as somehow exclusive of individuals is directly addressed by Hegel's political theory.
      - naasking 8y ago
        I don't think I ever claimed collective benefits were necessarily exclusive of individuals. But sometimes they clearly are.
dang 8y ago
Can you please not up the ante like this in terms of ideological vitriol? Regardless of how wrong someone else is, all this does is erode the container and make it less possible to engage with each other. The HN guidelines try to guard against this type of swerve, and if you read them you'll see that there are several that your comment violated. (Other comments are doing a poor job of following the guidelines, too, but this was a degree worse, and you did it again downthread.) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Mithaldu 8y ago
  I see you stand strong against people who say the right things with impolite words. Fine, your choice. But honestly, the more i watch these things the more i notice that you NEVER stand as strong against people who say vile hateful things in nice words. Given this, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that people feel more and more that it's not worth to try and make an effort to stay nice if that's how "the top" behaves.
  - thraway180306 8y ago
    To the mods credit they did make @yummyfajitas go away. Took them years of, as you say, unevenly nice language, but finally they did.
    - Mithaldu 8y ago
      I have to admit i'm unaware of that case. Got a place that explains it?
      - tomhoward 8y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116601 The user left of his own accord after that warning from dang. By the way, if you're going to make claims like "you NEVER stand as strong against people who say vile hateful things in nice words", you really need to provide evidence. It should be easy to prove with examples, and it would signal that you're acting in a good-faith effort to improve the site rather than just trying to attack dang personally.

by dnomad 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

> The logic here is so transparently hypocritical, self-serving and stupid that I suspect it will really crystallize the "sides" involved here [...] So I say, go for it. Protest against every attempt to include minorities. See, this isn't being charitable to those who disagree with you, and your attitude is a big problem with why these issues just get more inflammatory. Consider the fact that people who oppose such efforts aren't your enemy, they simply disagree with your allegedly infallible logic. Few people are actually against "minorities". In the end, the smallest minority is the individual. This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belong to. Privilege is a statistical metric, but individual experience is not causally dictated by such metrics. Group-specific efforts wouldn't be so controversial if they weren't pushing a narrative that denies this basic fact. This should be obvious from the outcry you'd get from trying to organize, say, a male-only tech event, or an Asian-only tech event. Might seem silly given the demographics in these industries, but you'd get serious blowback just from the effort.

dnomad 8y ago
> This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belong to. Privilege is a statistical metric, but individual experience is not causally dictated by such metrics. But this is nonsense. How can any reasonable person believe that one's "group" has absolutely no impact on one's life experiences? You're literally saying "one individual's experience as a member of X group has no impact on one's individual experience." Does that really parse in your head? Look, there's no there there and you can devise silly rationalizations all day. The only thing that matters are the ends. The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? People should just be honest about their aims and end goals and we can skip the endless rationalizations. I find it all a bit too theatrical. Like internships for Pacific Islanders are absolutely harmless. They literally cause zero harm. There are few things in this world absolutely harmless but this is one of them. But here they are being protested as discrimination! It turns out any attempt to be inclusive is decried as some betrayal of "individual experience," whatever that actually means and we get flamboyant resignations in response. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.
- code_sloth 8y ago
  > The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? Don't think anyone said that. Quite the opposite. You read what you wanted to read, and arrived at that conclusion all by yourself. > I find it all a bit too theatrical. Yes, and you're on stage.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  >The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? This is not a charitable way to interpret the actions of others. Because of the unfortunate treatment of certain people in the past, it doesn't justify poor treatment of others now. The ends do not justify the means. To quote Gandhi: "They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”
ac0821 8y ago
> In the end, the smallest minority is the individual. Stop reading Rand. Start reading Hegel.
- naasking 8y ago
  Are you actually going to address the points I raised, or are you just here to make unjustified inferences about my philosophical background?
  - youdontknowtho 8y ago
    If there is a historical defcit of resources that have been denied to a group is it ok to help that group recoup some of that deficit?
    - naasking 8y ago
      Probably to some extent, but even assuming it's true, I think you'll agree that some means of doing so are more just and more effective than others.
  - ac0821 8y ago
    My mistake; I assumed a Randian background as the whole "individual as smallest minority" thing is nearly a direct Rand quote. That said, if you approach it critically, I think you'll find it addresses the point you made. The reductionist philosophy that posits collective benefits as somehow exclusive of individuals is directly addressed by Hegel's political theory.
    - naasking 8y ago
      I don't think I ever claimed collective benefits were necessarily exclusive of individuals. But sometimes they clearly are.

dang 8y ago

Can you please not up the ante like this in terms of ideological vitriol? Regardless of how wrong someone else is, all this does is erode the container and make it less possible to engage with each other. The HN guidelines try to guard against this type of swerve, and if you read them you'll see that there are several that your comment violated. (Other comments are doing a poor job of following the guidelines, too, but this was a degree worse, and you did it again downthread.) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Mithaldu 8y ago
I see you stand strong against people who say the right things with impolite words. Fine, your choice. But honestly, the more i watch these things the more i notice that you NEVER stand as strong against people who say vile hateful things in nice words. Given this, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that people feel more and more that it's not worth to try and make an effort to stay nice if that's how "the top" behaves.
- thraway180306 8y ago
  To the mods credit they did make @yummyfajitas go away. Took them years of, as you say, unevenly nice language, but finally they did.
  - Mithaldu 8y ago
    I have to admit i'm unaware of that case. Got a place that explains it?
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116601 The user left of his own accord after that warning from dang. By the way, if you're going to make claims like "you NEVER stand as strong against people who say vile hateful things in nice words", you really need to provide evidence. It should be easy to prove with examples, and it would signal that you're acting in a good-faith effort to improve the site rather than just trying to attack dang personally.