12 ms·

Two points: 1. the color of the beekeepers' skin is irrelevant and appears to have been an addition made by the poster 2. "The duo bought their first vacant s

• SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > 1. the color of the beekeepers' skin is irrelevant and appears to have been an addition made by the poster It's the title of the original post on the HuffPost.
  • x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
    Doesn't matter if that's the original title, the mention of "black" makes many in HN's userbase uncomfortable.
    • SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      He says: > 1. the color of the beekeepers' skin is irrelevant and appears to have been an addition made by the poster It isn't an addition at all, regardless of our comfort.
      • peterwwillis 7y ago
        I didn't realize what was going on in this thread until I double-checked the article - currently, the HuffPost story still has the title "Black Beekeepers Are Transforming Detroit’s Vacant Lots Into Bee Farms". The reason this title has "Black" in it is it's part of a HuffPost column called Black Voices; literally stories concerning African Americans. And the beekeepers noted here are indeed black. And I don't know if many of you know this, but there aren't that many black beekeepers out there. The fact that the beekeepers are black is germane to the column and the story. Removing that from the title is erasing an achievement of a local black community. I think another commenter on here was spot on: someone on HN removed the "Black"ness from the story because it made them uncomfortable. Can a mod please restore the original title?
        • dang 7y ago
          Sure, I've done so. Happy to, if it's central to the article. The goal here is to get the fairest, most substantive discussion of the article and minimize predictable, stupid, always-the-same flamewar. > someone on HN removed the "Black"ness from the story because it made them uncomfortable That was me, and it didn't and doesn't make me the least uncomfortable. What does make me uncomfortable: people jumping to conclusions and accusing us of ugly motivations based on a made-up interpretation of almost zero information. Internet users have no compunction about doing that, and there's a kind of widespread implicit agreement to pretend that it's cost free. It's far from cost free.
          • peterwwillis 7y ago
            > I'll tell you what does make me uncomfortable: people jumping to conclusions and accusing us of ugly motivations based on their own made-up interpretation of almost zero information. 1) You're a moderator - literally a person with more power than everyone else. People tend to get upset around the decisions of people more powerful than them, and jump to conclusions. It has happened in every single organization I have ever seen, including freaking yoga studios. It's on page 1 of your job description. So while I have sympathy for you, I don't have pity. 2) Sharing more detail about your changes can make a huge difference to the people that are affected by them. It may not always make people happy, but often a lack of understanding creates frustration. I appreciate the information you added after the fact, and suggest to add these details with your initial changes. 3) I don't know why you made the original change. Perhaps you didn't realize where the story came from, and just wanted to avoid any conflict at all, and so erased whatever seemed like it might generate controversy. But in doing so, you generated controversy. Like I mentioned multiple times in my comments, it appeared that the change was racially motivated ("Unless I missed something ...", "If true, ..."), even if unintentional, as a side-effect of trying to avoid a difficult discussion. And I may have been wrong, and made an unfair accusation. For that I apologize. But it turns out that the motivation didn't matter at all, because the effect was the same regardless of intent. 4) Sometimes we need to have difficult discussions. Yes, even on the fantasy land called HN, where the real world doesn't happen, and all that exists are interesting stories about technology. In this case, the really interesting discussion is not about beehives, it's about the way people interpret what they read, and how they act based on that. As one example, people may see a word that signals in them an unacceptable idea or scenario and jump to conclusions. For another, it's possible for someone to completely unintentionally have a negative effect on a minority community without even realizing it; which is a really important thing to realize, face, and learn from, but that most people in such a position won't want to accept. And another is that sometimes something that could cause a flame war might be there for a good reason, and people may need to learn to deal with it (as we used to say growing up, "like adults"). What could have been a flame war is (to me) a very important lesson about personal bias, how people interpret the world around them, and the effect they have on others. I'm saving this article as a favorite story to remind myself.
    • arkades 7y ago
      It matters that the person theyre responding to is literally asserting, and I quote, “the color of the beekeepers' skin is irrelevant and appears to have been an addition made by the poster.” It’s ... the point under discussion in this sub-thread.
    • shaki-dora 7y ago
      If 'the mention of "black" makes many [..] uncomfortable' then that would seem to be their problem.
  • apo 7y ago
    That's weird. I thought that there was a different title when I read the article. Even double checked the title.
    • SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Really??? That's bizarre.
    • steve19 7y ago
      A/B testing headlines is not uncommon
• arkades 7y ago
  The title of the page I’m looking at is the same as the post here, and is in a section entitled “Black Voices.” I don’t see where the poster changed anything.
  • hinkley 7y ago
    And with a by-line from Philip Lewis who is conspicuously melanin-advantaged. Look. Every demographic that does conspicuously well in an avocation has role models and mentors that children and young adults can identify with, from hard sciences (Feynman comments on this I think as far back as the 70's) to professional cycling. If it seems childish, recall the target audience. Then take a deep breath, and relax.
• dang 7y ago
  Ok, we've shortened the title. Please let's all step away from the flamebait now. Edit: since some people are arguing that it's an essential element of the story, I'm happy to put it back. The issue here is trying to get the content of the article the most interesting, substantial discussion the community can give it. That requires minimizing the things that push discussions in nasty, stupid directions, which we do routinely on this site all day.
  • obese_by_nature 7y ago
    Why did you shadow ban my account?
    • dang 7y ago
      We didn't. Its karma fell below a threshold at which its comments get moderated by default. If you want to email hn@ycombinator.com and commit to posting thoughtful, substantive comments and following the site guidelines, we'd be happy to reset it for you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • obese_by_nature 7y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675363 This is not pseudoscience -- unlike many of the other comments on GMOs and hormones. It's backed by research and the FDA. Tell me where I'm wrong.
      • obese_by_nature 7y ago
        I'm commenting here.
  • fzeroracer 7y ago
    Really? No offense Dang but don't you think that is patently ridiculous if a mere mention of skin color for a relatively benign story invites trolling and racism? Why is mentioning the fact that they're black somehow flamebait here on HN? This is a story written by a black man, under 'Black Voices' about Black beekeepers with their race explicitly mentioned in the title of the article.
• dang 7y ago
  I'm going to collapse this subthread which, predictably, became a flamewar about the title (and the title change (and probably next, the title changeback)). You'd be welcome to repost your point about land redevelopment, which I assume doesn't contain any flamebait, in a comment of its own.
• buboard 7y ago
  i m happy that they are black, but it s totally irrelevant to the article
  • fastball 7y ago
    So irrelevant to the article that the race is not even mentioned anywhere in the body, only the title. Textbook clickbait.
    • isoskeles 7y ago
      I thought this was a Vice article based on the headline alone.
  • Zenst 7y ago
    Indeed, it is like putting the word human in there, though the prospect that it may goad a few racists to think they can do better, has many positive outcomes.
• RaceWon 7y ago
  I'm not being an asshole here I'm Fucking SERIOUS: Why is it "Black Beekeepers..." And not Just "Beekeepers" (And yes I saw the pic of the author who is presumably American of African descent). I fear America will Never shed its segregation roots as long as we keep referring to each other in terms of color. Me, I'm adopted, and when people ask me where I'm from, I'll usually say Earth. Peace.
  • bnjms 7y ago
    This reminds me of something my girlfriend heard this weekend when she met up with some old friends. She heard an employer say something like: tell the Chinese girls such n such. Where one would expect to hear just tell the girls.
  • iron0013 7y ago
    I'm not sure simply saying "I'm not being an asshole here" precludes you from being an asshole, in the same way that "I'm not a racist but..." is no guarantee that what follows isn't going to be racist.
    • RaceWon 7y ago
      > I'm not sure simply saying "I'm not being an asshole here" Thank you. I was clearly wrong: We absolutely should continue to delineate ourselves in terms of skin hue; Obviously that is the only, and best way to bridge the racial chasm. I must be blind to have not seen this.