4 ms·

You make fair points but at the same time are avoiding the larger question. What are the criteria guiding the decision? You've mentioned only one, the intent of

You make fair points but at the same time are avoiding the larger question. What are the criteria guiding the decision? You've mentioned only one, the intent of the poster -- or more specifically the most charitably possible intent. Are there conditions under which HN would should modify offensive language to some communities? You outline no other concrete specifics that would counterbalance globally possible poster intent. So I'll restate my challenge: If this very same article, but concerning a black mathematician instead of a female one, were posted with the word "negro" included in the title by an HN poster of uncertain possibly non-U.S. origin, would it go unedited? Stipulating that there are some locales in which this word is inoffensive.

dang 7y ago
I wouldn't say that's "the" larger question so much as a different question, which is fine and I'm happy to answer. Are there conditions under which we would modify story titles that might be offensive to some communities? Of course. We do that all the time. From my perspective this is not even a question, which is probably why I didn't mention it. Would we edit a post title "A negro became the first person to fold a paper in half 12 times"? Of course. That's a no-brainer. But I have a different problem with what you're asking there. Such a title is an absurd construction. I've never seen a submission like that, and I can't imagine one ever appearing, except as a particularly lame troll. So you're basically asking me a trolley problem (as in trams, not trolls!)—entirely abstract, corresponding to nothing in lived experience. But everything that makes these questions hard about how people treat each other, resides in lived experience. Edit: I spent the afternoon writing about this at length, almost an essay, but I don't know that it would be so helpful here. Its main point was that we can't move these problems unless we remain able to respond with the heart. To the extent that abstractions (such as ideological categories) function like a suit of armor that we wear into battle, they dampen heart responses or even suppress them altogether—at which point we no longer see the other as someone like ourselves. That is why I asked you how you'd feel if you were in the OP's situation. The key word is feel. For my part, I'd have felt awful and ashamed. That moves nothing forward.
- abalone 7y ago
  I appreciate your work on making HN a welcoming, supportive community. You’ve given a great deal of thoughtful attention to the feelings of folks who may be contributing from different cultural contexts, which is admirable. My argument is we ought to give at least as much attention to the concerns of women in our community who have objected to the diminutive use of “girl”. I gave a hypothetical to demonstrate the principle that how language is received is just as or more important than the intent in which it is given. I think we can agree that we should not assume the worst intentions and should be constructive with feedback. But that is not to say that posts should not be “sanitized” (your term) simply because the poster may not have been aware of how the language would be received more broadly (internationally). We must also consider that some language, even if a mere misunderstanding, can make marginalized communities feel unwelcome. Thanks for your time on this.

dang 7y ago

I wouldn't say that's "the" larger question so much as a different question, which is fine and I'm happy to answer. Are there conditions under which we would modify story titles that might be offensive to some communities? Of course. We do that all the time. From my perspective this is not even a question, which is probably why I didn't mention it. Would we edit a post title "A negro became the first person to fold a paper in half 12 times"? Of course. That's a no-brainer. But I have a different problem with what you're asking there. Such a title is an absurd construction. I've never seen a submission like that, and I can't imagine one ever appearing, except as a particularly lame troll. So you're basically asking me a trolley problem (as in trams, not trolls!)—entirely abstract, corresponding to nothing in lived experience. But everything that makes these questions hard about how people treat each other, resides in lived experience. Edit: I spent the afternoon writing about this at length, almost an essay, but I don't know that it would be so helpful here. Its main point was that we can't move these problems unless we remain able to respond with the heart. To the extent that abstractions (such as ideological categories) function like a suit of armor that we wear into battle, they dampen heart responses or even suppress them altogether—at which point we no longer see the other as someone like ourselves. That is why I asked you how you'd feel if you were in the OP's situation. The key word is feel. For my part, I'd have felt awful and ashamed. That moves nothing forward.

abalone 7y ago
I appreciate your work on making HN a welcoming, supportive community. You’ve given a great deal of thoughtful attention to the feelings of folks who may be contributing from different cultural contexts, which is admirable. My argument is we ought to give at least as much attention to the concerns of women in our community who have objected to the diminutive use of “girl”. I gave a hypothetical to demonstrate the principle that how language is received is just as or more important than the intent in which it is given. I think we can agree that we should not assume the worst intentions and should be constructive with feedback. But that is not to say that posts should not be “sanitized” (your term) simply because the poster may not have been aware of how the language would be received more broadly (internationally). We must also consider that some language, even if a mere misunderstanding, can make marginalized communities feel unwelcome. Thanks for your time on this.