3 ms·

I think most people would agree that having rational, emotionally detached conversations about complex and sensitive subjects would be beneficial to society, so

I think most people would agree that having rational, emotionally detached conversations about complex and sensitive subjects would be beneficial to society, so in that, I agree with the author. And from his writing, it does seem his effort to talk about these subjects is done in earnest. But I think there are a few reasons why this mindset fails in real world application. Firstly, the various social justice movements we see in western societies are all groups that aren’t straight white men. And while one might say that shouldn’t matter in a logical discussion, the fact is that the life experiences of these maligned groups are outside the realm of experience of the author, and of other straight white men. Rational debate depends on high quality data, and that data is not immediately available unless you live it. So unless you actively inquire and try to get a deep understanding of what these groups go through, you’re going to be debating or discussing something you don’t know a lot about, relatively. The other issue is that these discussions inherently aren’t rational and detached from emotion. To the maligned group, this topic is something they live with every day, and often times have had to endure extreme emotional trauma. When someone says to them, “let’s just discuss this rationally”, they rightly often feel very frustrated. If we want to have honest, good faith discussions on the topic of social equality, the only solution is for people to earnestly and honestly inform themselves of the life experiences of the social groups for whom equality has remained out of reach. Also note that I’m not trying to target straight white men (I’m a straight white man too). I think this has more to do with power dynamics. I’m sure countries like India and China have their own particular historical class of power that is the target of their own social movements.

colemickens 8y ago
>If we want to have honest, good faith discussions on the topic of social equality, the only solution is for people to earnestly and honestly inform themselves of the life experiences of the social groups for whom equality has remained out of reach. While I agree with every word you wrote, I don't know how you can maintain hope in this. Just weeks ago, there was an HN thread, where between the article and comments there were dozens of stories of women suffering harassment. And yet still, multiple people here commented to the effect, "No real women in my life tell me about this stuff, the rest must be hysterical." I'm paraphrasing, but it's not an unfair characterization. I see it in the same light as folks that have a completely 100% incorrect understanding of "[institutional] privilege" and are already at a weird level of anger by time they enter any conversation about it. They seem to be unable or unwilling to entertain, let alone accept, evidence contrary to their closely held beliefs (and there's evidence to back it up). Meanwhile, the groups that get frustrated at continual, constant marginalization from those with their heads in the clouds, or try to advocate for causes and less ignorance, are given three-letter acronym labels which are used to deride and derail. And within 5 minutes this reply is swinging +/-4 votes with no replies. How absolutely utterly depressing.
- sudofail 8y ago
  Hey, I appreciate your response, and share in your sentiment that responses on this subject can be very depressing. But I do think we as a society are trending towards equality. As much as the internet is supposed to connect us, subjects like these can be very divisive because the internet tends remove the human element from the discussion. We're much more likely to go on a political rant on Facebook than we ever would directly to our family, for instance. This subject requires real human connection. It requires understanding our fellow citizens and understanding what they go through. As a personal anecdote, I also used to be homophobic and very ignorant of racism in America. I feel awful about some of the things I've said. But then I began working for a company out in San Francisco, and a few of my coworkers were gay, and a couple people were going through sex reassignment. I became friends with them, and they shared numerous stories that really helped me see how uninformed I'd been. Obviously this is my personal experience, but I'm hopeful that as more and more people feel safe to come out, that the people around them will have similar experiences as me.
- perfmode 8y ago
  Death is the best thing our species has going for us. I have faith that the next generation will be wiser and less prejudiced. Now if only climate change could wait... Unfortunately we are running against a shot clock right now and we can’t simply wait for the next generation to pick up the bill.
ummonk 8y ago
Yup. I believe that social justice movements go way too far in stifling discussion of important topics, and making people walk on eggshells when expressing their viewpoint. At the same time though, it's ridiculous to expect people to be robots devoid of emotion and expect them to dispassionately participate discussion of a topic that deeply affects them, especially when they may have very real trauma related to said issue.
- sudofail 8y ago
  I agree the social movements sometimes go too far, but I try not to let perfect be the enemy of good, in this case. Another issue, I think, is media coverage. I think we often conflate the coverage of the subject with the subject itself. How the media covers Black Lives Matter, for instance, is distinct from the actual movement. Often times the coverage encourages a "Walk on eggshells" mentality that doesn't necessarily reflect how members of the movement actually feel. It's just something to keep in mind that they aren't necessarily the same thing. How many times has the media botched a report related to technology, for instance?
  - ummonk 8y ago
    >Often times the coverage encourages a "Walk on eggshells" mentality that doesn't necessarily reflect how members of the movement actually feel. I don't need to do that when I can simply check out e.g. the discussion in company Slack channels, where real members of these movements are causing people to really walk on eggshells. Note that I wouldn't really put BLM as an example of a social movement that has gone too far in stifling discussion. It is probably a good example though of media coverage being bad for a momevement. From what I could tell, the media tended to most highlight instances of killings by police that weren't obviously bad, to drum up controversy (e.g. focusing on the Michael Brown shooting), discrediting BLM in the process.
    - Zuider 8y ago
      You may be overlooking the spate of execution-style murders of police officers by BLM members that occurred in 2016. These killings ought surely to have some impact on how one judges whether BLM is a social movement that has on occasion gone too far.
zozbot123 8y ago
> And while one might say that shouldn’t matter in a logical discussion, the fact is that the life experiences of these maligned groups are outside the realm of experience of the author, and of other straight white men Why are you treating all "straight white men" as if they had identical life experiences? Do you suppose that the author's "realm of experience" could tell us anything useful about the lives of e.g. poor whites in Appalachia, or in poor parts of the Midwest that are now ravaged by the opioid epidemic? What's the point of bringing up this ascribed group identity, other than as a clear indication of bias (negatively-valenced homogeneity)? And the notion that "rational discussion" should be avoided simply because some people might feel frustrated by it seems especially unhelpful: plenty of people, even very prominent people, feel "frustrated" by rational discussion of climate change, does this mean that it's morally wrong to discuss the best way of saving our way of life on this planet in the face of an urgent threat to it? Obviously not. But our stance on such issues as possible racism or sexism is also quite important, on its own terms - so it should be just as amenable to rational discussion.
dgudkov 8y ago
>rational, emotionally detached conversations about complex and sensitive subjects would be beneficial to society Yes, only when they are exactly that - rational, and emotionally detached. All conversations on sensitive subjects fall into 3 categories: * Facts+logic vs facts+logic * Facts+logic vs feelings * Feelings vs feelings HN is a rare place on the internet where one can frequently see "Facts+logic vs facts+logic" conversations even on sensitive topics. The vast majority of conversations on the internet about sensitive topics end up being "feelings vs feelings". The problem with "feelings vs feelings" is that by design it's never about fact finding or truth. It's always about friend-foe identification. Any person who starts a conversation from the "feelings" position views the conversation as a way to categorize the other person as either a "friend" or a "foe".

colemickens 8y ago

>If we want to have honest, good faith discussions on the topic of social equality, the only solution is for people to earnestly and honestly inform themselves of the life experiences of the social groups for whom equality has remained out of reach. While I agree with every word you wrote, I don't know how you can maintain hope in this. Just weeks ago, there was an HN thread, where between the article and comments there were dozens of stories of women suffering harassment. And yet still, multiple people here commented to the effect, "No real women in my life tell me about this stuff, the rest must be hysterical." I'm paraphrasing, but it's not an unfair characterization. I see it in the same light as folks that have a completely 100% incorrect understanding of "[institutional] privilege" and are already at a weird level of anger by time they enter any conversation about it. They seem to be unable or unwilling to entertain, let alone accept, evidence contrary to their closely held beliefs (and there's evidence to back it up). Meanwhile, the groups that get frustrated at continual, constant marginalization from those with their heads in the clouds, or try to advocate for causes and less ignorance, are given three-letter acronym labels which are used to deride and derail. And within 5 minutes this reply is swinging +/-4 votes with no replies. How absolutely utterly depressing.

sudofail 8y ago
Hey, I appreciate your response, and share in your sentiment that responses on this subject can be very depressing. But I do think we as a society are trending towards equality. As much as the internet is supposed to connect us, subjects like these can be very divisive because the internet tends remove the human element from the discussion. We're much more likely to go on a political rant on Facebook than we ever would directly to our family, for instance. This subject requires real human connection. It requires understanding our fellow citizens and understanding what they go through. As a personal anecdote, I also used to be homophobic and very ignorant of racism in America. I feel awful about some of the things I've said. But then I began working for a company out in San Francisco, and a few of my coworkers were gay, and a couple people were going through sex reassignment. I became friends with them, and they shared numerous stories that really helped me see how uninformed I'd been. Obviously this is my personal experience, but I'm hopeful that as more and more people feel safe to come out, that the people around them will have similar experiences as me.
perfmode 8y ago
Death is the best thing our species has going for us. I have faith that the next generation will be wiser and less prejudiced. Now if only climate change could wait... Unfortunately we are running against a shot clock right now and we can’t simply wait for the next generation to pick up the bill.

ummonk 8y ago

Yup. I believe that social justice movements go way too far in stifling discussion of important topics, and making people walk on eggshells when expressing their viewpoint. At the same time though, it's ridiculous to expect people to be robots devoid of emotion and expect them to dispassionately participate discussion of a topic that deeply affects them, especially when they may have very real trauma related to said issue.

sudofail 8y ago
I agree the social movements sometimes go too far, but I try not to let perfect be the enemy of good, in this case. Another issue, I think, is media coverage. I think we often conflate the coverage of the subject with the subject itself. How the media covers Black Lives Matter, for instance, is distinct from the actual movement. Often times the coverage encourages a "Walk on eggshells" mentality that doesn't necessarily reflect how members of the movement actually feel. It's just something to keep in mind that they aren't necessarily the same thing. How many times has the media botched a report related to technology, for instance?
- ummonk 8y ago
  >Often times the coverage encourages a "Walk on eggshells" mentality that doesn't necessarily reflect how members of the movement actually feel. I don't need to do that when I can simply check out e.g. the discussion in company Slack channels, where real members of these movements are causing people to really walk on eggshells. Note that I wouldn't really put BLM as an example of a social movement that has gone too far in stifling discussion. It is probably a good example though of media coverage being bad for a momevement. From what I could tell, the media tended to most highlight instances of killings by police that weren't obviously bad, to drum up controversy (e.g. focusing on the Michael Brown shooting), discrediting BLM in the process.
  - Zuider 8y ago
    You may be overlooking the spate of execution-style murders of police officers by BLM members that occurred in 2016. These killings ought surely to have some impact on how one judges whether BLM is a social movement that has on occasion gone too far.

zozbot123 8y ago

> And while one might say that shouldn’t matter in a logical discussion, the fact is that the life experiences of these maligned groups are outside the realm of experience of the author, and of other straight white men Why are you treating all "straight white men" as if they had identical life experiences? Do you suppose that the author's "realm of experience" could tell us anything useful about the lives of e.g. poor whites in Appalachia, or in poor parts of the Midwest that are now ravaged by the opioid epidemic? What's the point of bringing up this ascribed group identity, other than as a clear indication of bias (negatively-valenced homogeneity)? And the notion that "rational discussion" should be avoided simply because some people might feel frustrated by it seems especially unhelpful: plenty of people, even very prominent people, feel "frustrated" by rational discussion of climate change, does this mean that it's morally wrong to discuss the best way of saving our way of life on this planet in the face of an urgent threat to it? Obviously not. But our stance on such issues as possible racism or sexism is also quite important, on its own terms - so it should be just as amenable to rational discussion.

dgudkov 8y ago

>rational, emotionally detached conversations about complex and sensitive subjects would be beneficial to society Yes, only when they are exactly that - rational, and emotionally detached. All conversations on sensitive subjects fall into 3 categories: * Facts+logic vs facts+logic * Facts+logic vs feelings * Feelings vs feelings HN is a rare place on the internet where one can frequently see "Facts+logic vs facts+logic" conversations even on sensitive topics. The vast majority of conversations on the internet about sensitive topics end up being "feelings vs feelings". The problem with "feelings vs feelings" is that by design it's never about fact finding or truth. It's always about friend-foe identification. Any person who starts a conversation from the "feelings" position views the conversation as a way to categorize the other person as either a "friend" or a "foe".