6 ms·

(Tagging dang -- am I crazy here for the following observation? Please advise.) What is it with all the random European-Caucasian men coming in and commenting

(Tagging dang -- am I crazy here for the following observation? Please advise.) What is it with all the random European-Caucasian men coming in and commenting on how they're randomly selected all the time? When someone feels like they're being selected-against for bias and when popular and well-researched evidence of such exists, you're minimizing and trivializing their suffering by making the same observation of yourself when you're the majority party. It's a form of passive and latent bigotry you might not even realize you're expressing. I'm commenting publicly and separately from HNthrow22 because plenty of you seem hideously blind to this. Your case may be true; I'm not disputing that, but the consensus research position is that "people of color are more often mistreated" and this anecdote by the OP fits that position. Your anecdote fits the less frequent occurrences ("more often against minorities v. less often against the majority"), and so by mentioning it, you diminish and belittle the minority person who's being mistreated by suggesting your experience is of equal likelihood; it's not, and you're not being considerate of that fact. As for me, I ambiguously appear to be of Middle Eastern or Cuban descent--Persian, for the record--and noticed that I'm consistently selected-against for screening about 50% of the time whenever I have either a beard or an extremely well-maintained fade. Of the many, many times I've been down to scruff or a clean-shaven face, it has happened only once, with that singular exception being this past Tuesday night in Tom Bradley International in LAX. In closing: there's nothing preventing you from voicing your less-likely experience, but by doing so, you're diminishing the more-likely experience faced by minority parties because there's inherently no differentiating context in individual anecdotes.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
HNthrow22 8y ago
You are 100% correct, I made a similar post and had it flagged/deleted, albeit with a bit more anger in mine. Give up man, this is a safe space for the white SV bros to hang out, they delete articles about minorities/black people in tech are regularly, check out http://hckrnews.com/ http://hckrnews.com/ to see what they remove. Don't mistake Hn for a discussion platform like I did, this is a curated SV accelerator funded PR platform to promote YC companies before anything else, the anger/frustration comes from this place parading/dressing up as a discussion forum, it is NOT.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  As I posted in my sibling reply, I think it might be good if you tried to focus on informing and actually trying to help people change their behaviour, rather than just voicing anger. I understand where the anger comes from, but try to realise that it is the exact thing you're angry about: you're mad that people can't identify with your experience, because you can't identify with not being able to do that without your (constructively formulated) help :) Interestingly, I'm somewhat afraid that this isn't formulated constructively enough. It's really hard to write this without sounding like I'm attacking you. But I guess that's what discussions are.
- dang 8y ago
  I'm sorry you feel that way and would be glad for an opportunity to persuade you otherwise, but there's no mystery in why users flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17637105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17637105: it broke the site guidelines. Comments here need to be better than telling others to "fuck right off", even when they're wrong, even when the feeling is understandable. eganist's comment makes the same point more thoughtfully, and didn't get flagged.
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    Not making any statements about the post in question, but I do think it would be more helpful if posters where given reasons for why posts are being flagged and/or downvoted. The legal profession exists because rules/laws are subject to all sorts of interpretation. And just as is the case in the outside world, it seems that, if at all, the rules are cited quite frequently for no other reason than someone decided that they didn't/don't agree with something that someone said. Hell, I've been downvoted a number of times for relaying facts that answer questions people here are asking or for pointing out a duplicate post. As you can imagine, such experiences detract from the experience, but perhaps that is the point?
eesmith 8y ago
I do not believe you are crazy. I believe that HN commenters are mostly 'European-Caucasian men' giving a skewed representation with respect to the general population.
Vinnl 8y ago
The reason for this is because the poster above shared an anecdote without that well-researched evidence. That means that if you're not aware of that well-researched evidence, the natural response to anecdote is by sharing your own, since anecdotes might not be representative and the sharer of the anecdote might want to be aware of that. Thus, I think the most valuable part of your post is sharing that the original anecdote is actually in line with well-researched evidence showing that that happens. It would be even more valuable, I think, if that was the main point of the post. By starting out with "What's will all the <people identified by a characteristic they can't help>", which immediately guilt-trips people and makes them less open to the information that might actually lead them to change their behaviour. More effective would be to frame it more like "if you are <characteristic you can't change>, you might not be aware that <thing>, but you might want to do <desired behaviour> because of that". Sure, it'd be nice if people would already know that, but I think it's good to focus on what's effective. Knowing all research or exactly how people unlike you experience life is really hard, so it's nice if you can help us with that.
dang 8y ago
Since you asked: it's a fine comment and I appreciate that you made it so thoughtfully. There's a tragedy-of-the-commons aspect in cases like this which we see a lot: a bunch of posts which individually aren't that problematic, but collectively are. The whole is less than the sum of its parts. In this case, the individual commenters weren't making claims about which groups this happens more to; they were just saying 'hey this reminds me of me', or perhaps, 'oh yeah, I always get picked on this way'. We all feel like we get picked on more than the next person ('mosquitoes always bite me'). But of course when you get a bunch of these together, the shadow they cast looks like a claim that maybe no one was trying to make. It's easy to see how that could make someone feel unwelcome and I wish that weren't the case.
- eganist 8y ago
  I agree with most everything you said and appreciate the support. That said, there is something to address: > In this case, the individual commenters weren't making claims about which groups this happens more to I don't know if this assertion can be sustained (though I can appreciate why you added it to your initial comment). My experience in these debates—having been on both sides and having done this exact same thing myself—is that we tend not to like feeling as if we're on the wrong side of anything. When someone makes a claim that inherently implies a societal wrong ("I'm am Indian male and I keep a beard and [...] I was singled out for 'random' checks at every single airport.") and someone else replies with a claim that the same situation was encountered without any of the same conditions (e.g. "White dude, [...] always getting the random checks too."), there's quite possibly an internal stimulus there compelling the latter to comment on the matter, inherently aiming to suggest away the risk that s/he's possibly part of an instigating group. As I've mentioned before, I've made this exact same sort of diminishing comment in other contexts in the past and have been (hopefully) re-educated on it, hence my keen sensitivity to it. The latter cited comment even went out of its way to attribute the OP's comment to "bad luck I guess." I don't think the latter commenter realized the harm in that statement nor intended any harm with it ("if it makes you feel any better" mid-comment), but it's a textbook example of the kind of diminishing remark that utterly decimates minority morale. Appreciate you taking the time to read this, dang.
jsoc815 8y ago
Against my better judgment, I'd like to wade into this to point you to a recent article in The New Yorker.[1] [1] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-ex...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

HNthrow22 8y ago

You are 100% correct, I made a similar post and had it flagged/deleted, albeit with a bit more anger in mine. Give up man, this is a safe space for the white SV bros to hang out, they delete articles about minorities/black people in tech are regularly, check out http://hckrnews.com/ http://hckrnews.com/ to see what they remove. Don't mistake Hn for a discussion platform like I did, this is a curated SV accelerator funded PR platform to promote YC companies before anything else, the anger/frustration comes from this place parading/dressing up as a discussion forum, it is NOT.

Vinnl 8y ago
As I posted in my sibling reply, I think it might be good if you tried to focus on informing and actually trying to help people change their behaviour, rather than just voicing anger. I understand where the anger comes from, but try to realise that it is the exact thing you're angry about: you're mad that people can't identify with your experience, because you can't identify with not being able to do that without your (constructively formulated) help :) Interestingly, I'm somewhat afraid that this isn't formulated constructively enough. It's really hard to write this without sounding like I'm attacking you. But I guess that's what discussions are.
dang 8y ago
I'm sorry you feel that way and would be glad for an opportunity to persuade you otherwise, but there's no mystery in why users flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17637105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17637105: it broke the site guidelines. Comments here need to be better than telling others to "fuck right off", even when they're wrong, even when the feeling is understandable. eganist's comment makes the same point more thoughtfully, and didn't get flagged.
- jsoc815 8y ago
  Not making any statements about the post in question, but I do think it would be more helpful if posters where given reasons for why posts are being flagged and/or downvoted. The legal profession exists because rules/laws are subject to all sorts of interpretation. And just as is the case in the outside world, it seems that, if at all, the rules are cited quite frequently for no other reason than someone decided that they didn't/don't agree with something that someone said. Hell, I've been downvoted a number of times for relaying facts that answer questions people here are asking or for pointing out a duplicate post. As you can imagine, such experiences detract from the experience, but perhaps that is the point?

eesmith 8y ago

I do not believe you are crazy. I believe that HN commenters are mostly 'European-Caucasian men' giving a skewed representation with respect to the general population.

Vinnl 8y ago

The reason for this is because the poster above shared an anecdote without that well-researched evidence. That means that if you're not aware of that well-researched evidence, the natural response to anecdote is by sharing your own, since anecdotes might not be representative and the sharer of the anecdote might want to be aware of that. Thus, I think the most valuable part of your post is sharing that the original anecdote is actually in line with well-researched evidence showing that that happens. It would be even more valuable, I think, if that was the main point of the post. By starting out with "What's will all the <people identified by a characteristic they can't help>", which immediately guilt-trips people and makes them less open to the information that might actually lead them to change their behaviour. More effective would be to frame it more like "if you are <characteristic you can't change>, you might not be aware that <thing>, but you might want to do <desired behaviour> because of that". Sure, it'd be nice if people would already know that, but I think it's good to focus on what's effective. Knowing all research or exactly how people unlike you experience life is really hard, so it's nice if you can help us with that.

dang 8y ago

Since you asked: it's a fine comment and I appreciate that you made it so thoughtfully. There's a tragedy-of-the-commons aspect in cases like this which we see a lot: a bunch of posts which individually aren't that problematic, but collectively are. The whole is less than the sum of its parts. In this case, the individual commenters weren't making claims about which groups this happens more to; they were just saying 'hey this reminds me of me', or perhaps, 'oh yeah, I always get picked on this way'. We all feel like we get picked on more than the next person ('mosquitoes always bite me'). But of course when you get a bunch of these together, the shadow they cast looks like a claim that maybe no one was trying to make. It's easy to see how that could make someone feel unwelcome and I wish that weren't the case.

eganist 8y ago
I agree with most everything you said and appreciate the support. That said, there is something to address: > In this case, the individual commenters weren't making claims about which groups this happens more to I don't know if this assertion can be sustained (though I can appreciate why you added it to your initial comment). My experience in these debates—having been on both sides and having done this exact same thing myself—is that we tend not to like feeling as if we're on the wrong side of anything. When someone makes a claim that inherently implies a societal wrong ("I'm am Indian male and I keep a beard and [...] I was singled out for 'random' checks at every single airport.") and someone else replies with a claim that the same situation was encountered without any of the same conditions (e.g. "White dude, [...] always getting the random checks too."), there's quite possibly an internal stimulus there compelling the latter to comment on the matter, inherently aiming to suggest away the risk that s/he's possibly part of an instigating group. As I've mentioned before, I've made this exact same sort of diminishing comment in other contexts in the past and have been (hopefully) re-educated on it, hence my keen sensitivity to it. The latter cited comment even went out of its way to attribute the OP's comment to "bad luck I guess." I don't think the latter commenter realized the harm in that statement nor intended any harm with it ("if it makes you feel any better" mid-comment), but it's a textbook example of the kind of diminishing remark that utterly decimates minority morale. Appreciate you taking the time to read this, dang.

jsoc815 8y ago

Against my better judgment, I'd like to wade into this to point you to a recent article in The New Yorker.[1] [1] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-ex...