3 ms·

>We know you hate us. It's the main message we receive every time we turn on the TV or any mainstream silicon valley website, including this one, again. That's

>We know you hate us. It's the main message we receive every time we turn on the TV or any mainstream silicon valley website, including this one, again. That's why I post with a throwaway name. I don't expect people who hate us to represent us fairly. It's unfortunate that you paint most of the the US with such a broad brush when complaining that those folks are painting you with a broad brush. I hope you can see the irony there. I learned as a child that treating others as individuals is incredibly important. Mostly because it became clear that most folks (of every stripe) are decent human beings, but that there are a small number of people who are assholes. The big problem with that small number of folks is that they aren't one particular group (whether that be geographic origin, ethnicity, melanin content, gender or profession, etc., etc., etc.). Rather they are pretty evenly distributed throughout society. That allows people to point at those very few and ascribe their shortcomings to everyone in a particular group or groups. The long and short of it is that, no "we" don't hate "you." In fact, most folks don't really care much (except in a general, "care about other human beings") one way or another about you or your fellow Texans. Having spent time in Texas (I'm from the Northeast), I've found that just about everyone I've met in (or who is from) Texas are decent, kind human beings. I suspect you'd be much happier if you were less concerned with what other folks think about you, and focused on living a decent life instead of shitting on people you don't know. Just a crazy thought.

finiteseries 6y ago
I'm used to this treatment by the media and by people I interact with as a professional software engineer Are the actual groups of people they’ve painted which doesn’t make for a particularly broad brush and certainly doesn’t include “most of the US”. It’s unfortunate that you spend 7 paragraphs explaining a basic concept most children are indeed aware of while the person you’re replying to complains about that exact behavior. I hope you can see the irony there. I suspect you’d be much more effective if you were less concerned with acting out a stereotype, and focused on reading the comment you’re replying to and addressing their point about bias in the media, and software industries.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I suspect you’d be much more effective Effective at what, exactly? I expressed my thoughts WRT the comment to which I replied. I just re-read my comment and I said exactly what I wanted to say. As far as I'm concerned, that's the "effectiveness" I was going for, and have achieved same. Thanks for your advice, I'll give it the weight and influence to which it's due.
  - finiteseries 6y ago
    I apologize, given the message of the comment and how personally addressed it was throughout, I had thought you’d meant to have a conversation with someone other than yourself.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >I apologize, given the message of the comment and how personally addressed it was throughout, I had thought you’d meant to have a conversation with someone other than yourself. No apology is necessary or even slightly warranted. You expressed yourself clearly and, as I mentioned, I appreciate your point of view. While you may (and I have no issue with that) disagree with my assessment, you appear to have ascribed some sort of broad-based attempt on my part to convince or "win over" some segment of HN readers to my point of view. That's not the case. My goal was to express my thoughts. I did so. As such, my effort was (as I mentioned) quite effective in achieving my goal. Whether or not that sparks further discussion isn't incredibly important to me, although I certainly have no problem having a conversation about the subject. I disagree with your assessment that GP[0] was addressing their belief that "we hate" them to some narrow group in the US. Given the reach of "the media" and "mainstream silicon valley websites", it seems obvious that GP was, in fact, painting a huge swathe of the US population with a broad brush. Given the DAUs of such "mainstream silicon valley websites" like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc., as well as the broad reach of "the media" (newspapers, TV/radio networks, etc.), I don't see how GP's statement could be interpreted otherwise. I'd be interested to understand the logic that leads you to a different conclusion. Thanks! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26206567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26206567 Edit: Added the "missing link."
rualca 6y ago
> Just a crazy thought. Well said. It's a shame that basic things like the importance of treating everyone with respect is required to be reinforced in public forums.

finiteseries 6y ago

I'm used to this treatment by the media and by people I interact with as a professional software engineer Are the actual groups of people they’ve painted which doesn’t make for a particularly broad brush and certainly doesn’t include “most of the US”. It’s unfortunate that you spend 7 paragraphs explaining a basic concept most children are indeed aware of while the person you’re replying to complains about that exact behavior. I hope you can see the irony there. I suspect you’d be much more effective if you were less concerned with acting out a stereotype, and focused on reading the comment you’re replying to and addressing their point about bias in the media, and software industries.

nobody9999 6y ago
>I suspect you’d be much more effective Effective at what, exactly? I expressed my thoughts WRT the comment to which I replied. I just re-read my comment and I said exactly what I wanted to say. As far as I'm concerned, that's the "effectiveness" I was going for, and have achieved same. Thanks for your advice, I'll give it the weight and influence to which it's due.
- finiteseries 6y ago
  I apologize, given the message of the comment and how personally addressed it was throughout, I had thought you’d meant to have a conversation with someone other than yourself.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >I apologize, given the message of the comment and how personally addressed it was throughout, I had thought you’d meant to have a conversation with someone other than yourself. No apology is necessary or even slightly warranted. You expressed yourself clearly and, as I mentioned, I appreciate your point of view. While you may (and I have no issue with that) disagree with my assessment, you appear to have ascribed some sort of broad-based attempt on my part to convince or "win over" some segment of HN readers to my point of view. That's not the case. My goal was to express my thoughts. I did so. As such, my effort was (as I mentioned) quite effective in achieving my goal. Whether or not that sparks further discussion isn't incredibly important to me, although I certainly have no problem having a conversation about the subject. I disagree with your assessment that GP[0] was addressing their belief that "we hate" them to some narrow group in the US. Given the reach of "the media" and "mainstream silicon valley websites", it seems obvious that GP was, in fact, painting a huge swathe of the US population with a broad brush. Given the DAUs of such "mainstream silicon valley websites" like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc., as well as the broad reach of "the media" (newspapers, TV/radio networks, etc.), I don't see how GP's statement could be interpreted otherwise. I'd be interested to understand the logic that leads you to a different conclusion. Thanks! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26206567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26206567 Edit: Added the "missing link."

rualca 6y ago

> Just a crazy thought. Well said. It's a shame that basic things like the importance of treating everyone with respect is required to be reinforced in public forums.