7 ms·

>> "old white guy in charge of Linux" Erhmmm, why does his age or colour matter in this context? Debate can happen about people and their leadership style, (I'

>> "old white guy in charge of Linux" Erhmmm, why does his age or colour matter in this context? Debate can happen about people and their leadership style, (I'm not a fan of Torvalds) but when the first criteria someone sees for criticizing another person is their age, colour, or race, that seems a bit shallow and biased.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 6y ago
I agree. Isn't this overt racism, sexism, ageism, etc? > Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group
- jp_sc 6y ago
  Of course it is, but it's the kind of bigotry nowadays some people evangelize as good (by redefining racism), and what the twitter mob encourages.
  - patcon 6y ago
    Chain of events: I was tempted to try a respectful reply with substance, but then realized I wouldn't be allowed to discuss this here, due to moderator preference for "not talking politics". I was then [regrettably] tempted to write something with a "mic drop" feel, just to express my disagreement in an acceptably pithy way. And then it occurred to me that this whole sub-thread is Twitter-length comments. And I was about to add one more. And I realized that maybe the moderation of HN actually prevents us from going as deeply on this topic as we do on everything else, and so that moderator preference has essentially reproduced a pithy and unproductive Twitter dynamic for topics like this. Pithy and shallow self-censored comments in reply to pithy self-censored comments. EDIT: But also, moderation is really hard <3 Just wanted to try to put words to a small dynamic that's perhaps playing out here.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      FWIW, I probably disagree with you, but I wish we could talk about these things in a civil way. I think the PC/cancel-culture prohibition about discussing this stuff is a real impediment toward progress. Further, I don't envy the moderators since it's hard to keep things civil--bad actors on both sides come out of the woodwork. Anyway, have an upvote as a small gesture of peace and kindness in a world where disagreements are supposed to make us bitter enemies.
      - patcon 6y ago
        Aw thanks! Yeah, I was a moderator on one of the first university-run online forums, and it was so stressful and difficult...! All the first-year students just spoke off-the-cuff, but "monitoring" all that speech was SO challenging...!
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      There was a huge thread yesterday on HN about this topic with many comments much longer than tweets. It is certainly a topic that can be discussed at length on HN. People were voted down and up, but no one was cancelled; we're all still here. I'm not aware of any moderator preference against talking about this subject. Again: huge thread on it yesterday that persisted on the front page all day. However, I don't think every single off-hand mention of race or gender needs to devolve into a subthread of 50 multi-paragraph comments. So I appreciate your decision to avoid it in this instance.
    - dang 6y ago
      > due to moderator preference for "not talking politics". There's no such preference. What made you think there was? The question of political topics on HN is a hard one because some political stories are on topic, some are off topic, and even the on-topic ones tend to turn into flamewars. I've written a lot about how we approach this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Some good threads to start with might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396. Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869, which shows how far back political discussion goes on HN, as well as the argument about politics on HN. If anyone reads those explanations and still has a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.
  - starkruzr 6y ago
    "Racism" against white people in the US is completely devoid of systemic material consequence. Understanding definitions isn't about "mobs" or even ideology, it's about identifying what happens in incidents of racial bias and why those things happen.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Fair enough, but does that make it "good" or simply "less bad"? And if it's just "less bad", then why should we tolerate it when there's no dichotomy between "racism against whites" and "racism against minorities" (i.e., we can and should aim for a world with no racism at all)? Further still, once you've established a racial worldview with a racial hierarchy that puts whites on the bottom, you've established a framework that facilitates white supremacist arguments (both by making it easier to frame whites as victims of racism and by validating racial worldviews in general--a worldview that puts whites on the bottom is a lot closer to a worldview that puts whites on the top than an egalitarian worldview is to either). Liberalism (i.e., treating people as individuals instead of identical constituents of their race) has been the driving force behind the massive reduction of white supremacy and anti-minority racism; it's an enormous success and an important bulwark that protects minorities. Why should we erode this important bulwark by replacing it with a system that (1) perpetuates injustice against whites and (2) paves the way for white supremacy? Racism is lose-lose.
    - jp_sc 6y ago
      What? We are not ants. Even if being racist to a person doesn't affect the "colony" still is being racist to that person. And redefining a word so is "bad for everyone but X" doesn't make X innocent of doing it, it makes X guilty and a bully. Also, the world is much bigger than the US.
philwelch 6y ago
I agree with you but that’s not how a lot of people see it these days.
- Frondo 6y ago
  Precisely no one wants to replace Linus Torvalds with a woman or person of color just to have a woman or person of color maintaining the Linux kernel.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    You’re begging me to go nutpicking with the phrase “precisely no one” but let’s grant that point. Many people have been outspoken about, in general, replacing white males in positions of power and importance with non-whites or non-males. The degree to which none of these people want to replace Linus probably has more to do with the degree to which Linus Torvalds is perceived to be in a position of power or importance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaway894345 6y ago

I agree. Isn't this overt racism, sexism, ageism, etc? > Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group

jp_sc 6y ago
Of course it is, but it's the kind of bigotry nowadays some people evangelize as good (by redefining racism), and what the twitter mob encourages.
- patcon 6y ago
  Chain of events: I was tempted to try a respectful reply with substance, but then realized I wouldn't be allowed to discuss this here, due to moderator preference for "not talking politics". I was then [regrettably] tempted to write something with a "mic drop" feel, just to express my disagreement in an acceptably pithy way. And then it occurred to me that this whole sub-thread is Twitter-length comments. And I was about to add one more. And I realized that maybe the moderation of HN actually prevents us from going as deeply on this topic as we do on everything else, and so that moderator preference has essentially reproduced a pithy and unproductive Twitter dynamic for topics like this. Pithy and shallow self-censored comments in reply to pithy self-censored comments. EDIT: But also, moderation is really hard <3 Just wanted to try to put words to a small dynamic that's perhaps playing out here.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    FWIW, I probably disagree with you, but I wish we could talk about these things in a civil way. I think the PC/cancel-culture prohibition about discussing this stuff is a real impediment toward progress. Further, I don't envy the moderators since it's hard to keep things civil--bad actors on both sides come out of the woodwork. Anyway, have an upvote as a small gesture of peace and kindness in a world where disagreements are supposed to make us bitter enemies.
    - patcon 6y ago
      Aw thanks! Yeah, I was a moderator on one of the first university-run online forums, and it was so stressful and difficult...! All the first-year students just spoke off-the-cuff, but "monitoring" all that speech was SO challenging...!
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    There was a huge thread yesterday on HN about this topic with many comments much longer than tweets. It is certainly a topic that can be discussed at length on HN. People were voted down and up, but no one was cancelled; we're all still here. I'm not aware of any moderator preference against talking about this subject. Again: huge thread on it yesterday that persisted on the front page all day. However, I don't think every single off-hand mention of race or gender needs to devolve into a subthread of 50 multi-paragraph comments. So I appreciate your decision to avoid it in this instance.
  - dang 6y ago
    > due to moderator preference for "not talking politics". There's no such preference. What made you think there was? The question of political topics on HN is a hard one because some political stories are on topic, some are off topic, and even the on-topic ones tend to turn into flamewars. I've written a lot about how we approach this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Some good threads to start with might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396. Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869, which shows how far back political discussion goes on HN, as well as the argument about politics on HN. If anyone reads those explanations and still has a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.
- starkruzr 6y ago
  "Racism" against white people in the US is completely devoid of systemic material consequence. Understanding definitions isn't about "mobs" or even ideology, it's about identifying what happens in incidents of racial bias and why those things happen.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Fair enough, but does that make it "good" or simply "less bad"? And if it's just "less bad", then why should we tolerate it when there's no dichotomy between "racism against whites" and "racism against minorities" (i.e., we can and should aim for a world with no racism at all)? Further still, once you've established a racial worldview with a racial hierarchy that puts whites on the bottom, you've established a framework that facilitates white supremacist arguments (both by making it easier to frame whites as victims of racism and by validating racial worldviews in general--a worldview that puts whites on the bottom is a lot closer to a worldview that puts whites on the top than an egalitarian worldview is to either). Liberalism (i.e., treating people as individuals instead of identical constituents of their race) has been the driving force behind the massive reduction of white supremacy and anti-minority racism; it's an enormous success and an important bulwark that protects minorities. Why should we erode this important bulwark by replacing it with a system that (1) perpetuates injustice against whites and (2) paves the way for white supremacy? Racism is lose-lose.
  - jp_sc 6y ago
    What? We are not ants. Even if being racist to a person doesn't affect the "colony" still is being racist to that person. And redefining a word so is "bad for everyone but X" doesn't make X innocent of doing it, it makes X guilty and a bully. Also, the world is much bigger than the US.

philwelch 6y ago

I agree with you but that’s not how a lot of people see it these days.

Frondo 6y ago
Precisely no one wants to replace Linus Torvalds with a woman or person of color just to have a woman or person of color maintaining the Linux kernel.
- philwelch 6y ago
  You’re begging me to go nutpicking with the phrase “precisely no one” but let’s grant that point. Many people have been outspoken about, in general, replacing white males in positions of power and importance with non-whites or non-males. The degree to which none of these people want to replace Linus probably has more to do with the degree to which Linus Torvalds is perceived to be in a position of power or importance.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]