6 ms·

> So while the tech community was rushing around, trying to do their best impression of a black square post on Insta I remember thinking, “oh for fucks sake, th

by Narann 6y ago

> So while the tech community was rushing around, trying to do their best impression of a black square post on Insta I remember thinking, “oh for fucks sake, they’ve completely missed the point”. Why? They forgot to talk to people who are actually members of the black community. In practice, big techs don't care about POC, they care about mobs. "Inclusive" words is just what make mobs happy and it's cheaper to do than being accused of discrimination for real reason: POC representation in big tech. Changing a default branch name is cheaper than try to fix the real world. That's the point, and that, unfortunately, the reason why the situation will never change: Because we act only on the exposed representation; movies, text on web site, etc.

nlitened 6y ago
Is “person of color” an okay thing to say in US? It really rubs me the wrong way (as a non-native English speaker). To me it’s kinda like calling people with long noses “people of nose size”.
- garmaine 6y ago
  It is a politically correct term, yes. For now.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    Curiously in other languages (e.g. French, Spanish) the equivalent term seems to be frowned upon and better avoided.
    - Kydlaw 6y ago
      Nowadays, POC is more widely used in French than naming a community directly by its skin color. "It is a black neighborhood" -> "It is a POC neighborhood"
      - enriquto 6y ago
        Are you sure? It cannot be very widespread. I've been living about 10 years in Paris and never heard "quartier de personnes de couleur" (POC neighborhood). Not a single time! Yet "quartier chinois" or "quartier arabe" are very common. But maybe my social circle is not very representative...
- __s 6y ago
  It's a strange thing, I've been having to do training sessions explaining that instead of saying "blind people" you have to say "people who are blind" because the former apparently projects more about their identity when it's important to underline that this attribute does not define them Basically there's a movement to shift from inheritance to entity component, wanting to implement people with has-a descriptions instead of is-a descriptions. This enables data oriented optimizations so that society executes more efficiently & can be more easily extended as new requirements are submitted by the mob https://www.acedisability.org.au/information-for-providers/language-disability.php https://www.acedisability.org.au/information-for-providers/l...
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Or ya know, not making someone’s disability the leading term you use to describe someone. That what’s most important is their personhood and they’re not defined by some single dominant aspect. And that their disability isn’t part of their identity but is just a fact about them. Language doesn’t do multiple inheritance well so has-a descriptions are easier to work recognizing that people are multifaceted.
    - __s 6y ago
      Don't worry I'm in full agreement, OOP is a terrible paradigm ever since it left Alan Kay's original inception which was closer to the has-a message passing paradigm that survives today. Rust's is a pleasure to use with traits instead of classes. Go's interface model is nice too, like a static duck typing. I've always preferred lots of interfaces in C# to abstract classes
    - Trasmatta 6y ago
      I'm sure it depends on the person and the disability, but I'm diabetic and would much rather be referred to as that rather than "a person with diabetes". That's just exhausting. Diabetes itself is awful. Whether or not it's the leading descriptor makes no difference with that, and I'd rather just use the non awkward terminology ("I'm diabetic" rather than "I'm a person with diabetes".) It would feel almost patronizing if everyone started referring to me that way.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  It is the currently accepted term on the Euphemism Treadmill. In my lifetime alone I have seen it go through colored people (perhaps the original source of your discomfort? and the "CP" in "NAACP"), Negro, black, Afro-American (which was brief but it doesn't mean I didn't have to rename a lot of anchor texts when the academic departments changed names to ...), African-American, then back to black, people of color, now finally capital B Black, with "people of color" apparently now a broader term of usage.
  - cdelsolar 6y ago
    sorry that black people's existence and struggles made you change a few links here and there
    - allknowingfrog 6y ago
      That's a pretty un-generous interpretation. This whole thread revolves around the idea that changing a label is a hollow gesture. The author of the parent comment seems to be making the same point about terms like "Afro-American" and "People of Color".
    - dang 6y ago
      "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Be kind. Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Narann 6y ago
  > Is “person of color” an okay thing to say in US? I'm not English native so that could be the wrong term, not trying to offend anyone. In this context, I mean "discriminated persons/peoples". IIRC, I saw this on the rules of r/publicfreakout (stating that videos representing "POC" would be moderated). For me "POC" means "Proof Of Concept", so I asked and discover it was about "Person Of Color" and so I use this on English spoken Internet. But I agree, it's a weird term and I never use this in my native language. Each country have different way to talk about racism and discrimination because each country have it's own racism and discrimination problems.
- munchbunny 6y ago
  Yes. Just think of it as a formalism - it's the currently culturally accepted term if that's the group you're trying to reference. Lots of languages have a fuzzy formal/casual split where usage is both context-based and a matter of respect, though I think the US is more unique in (1) the degree of energy focused towards coming up with formal names for demographic groups and (2) making them out of words that are also used casually.
- hinkley 6y ago
  It’s been a self label for some time. Given the fact that there is a lot of horizontal aggression built into The System, getting everyone to pull in more or less the same direction is progress in its own right. The terminology seems to be shifting to BIPOC, to include Indigenous peoples. I haven’t heard an a explanation for why Black is also split out.
- foofoo4u 6y ago
  Great question about the term "people of color". Reminds me of when Apple posted on their home page, "Racial Equity and Justice Initiative. For equitable education. For a more just justice system. And for Black and Brown businesses.". The part that particularly rubs me the wrong way is the term "Brown" people. And it’s uppercase. Who wants to be called a "Brown" person? I’ve never heard anyone called that before in my life. It’s incredibly degrading and reductionary. If I am Mexican or Indian, the last thing I want to be labeled is "Brown". Thanks for reducing me down to a single divisive term. What is perplexing is that somehow this term is ok and so is "black" and "white". But saying "yellow" or "red" is offensive. This inconsistency is absurd. Those that are pushing this language somehow think they are morally superior to those of the past. But in reality, they have stepped right into their way of thinking — seeing people by "color" and categorizing society based on it.
  - bobsmooth 6y ago
    >Who wants to be called a "Brown" person? In high school, there were kids that called themselves brown, but it was always ironically.
justAnIdea 6y ago
Big tech better make sure that they don't fly too close to the sun. The sun being socialist takeover of the U.S. (i.e. true progressives, whose links to socialism are undeniable, taking over the democratic party). Because most of them would not came out of that transformation unscathed.
ipsum2 6y ago
POC means people of color, aka non-white, yes? There's a lot of Indian and east Asian representation in the tech workforce. You should be more specific about what you mean.

by Narann 6y ago

nlitened 6y ago

Is “person of color” an okay thing to say in US? It really rubs me the wrong way (as a non-native English speaker). To me it’s kinda like calling people with long noses “people of nose size”.

garmaine 6y ago
It is a politically correct term, yes. For now.
- enriquto 6y ago
  Curiously in other languages (e.g. French, Spanish) the equivalent term seems to be frowned upon and better avoided.
  - Kydlaw 6y ago
    Nowadays, POC is more widely used in French than naming a community directly by its skin color. "It is a black neighborhood" -> "It is a POC neighborhood"
    - enriquto 6y ago
      Are you sure? It cannot be very widespread. I've been living about 10 years in Paris and never heard "quartier de personnes de couleur" (POC neighborhood). Not a single time! Yet "quartier chinois" or "quartier arabe" are very common. But maybe my social circle is not very representative...
__s 6y ago
It's a strange thing, I've been having to do training sessions explaining that instead of saying "blind people" you have to say "people who are blind" because the former apparently projects more about their identity when it's important to underline that this attribute does not define them Basically there's a movement to shift from inheritance to entity component, wanting to implement people with has-a descriptions instead of is-a descriptions. This enables data oriented optimizations so that society executes more efficiently & can be more easily extended as new requirements are submitted by the mob https://www.acedisability.org.au/information-for-providers/language-disability.php https://www.acedisability.org.au/information-for-providers/l...
- Spivak 6y ago
  Or ya know, not making someone’s disability the leading term you use to describe someone. That what’s most important is their personhood and they’re not defined by some single dominant aspect. And that their disability isn’t part of their identity but is just a fact about them. Language doesn’t do multiple inheritance well so has-a descriptions are easier to work recognizing that people are multifaceted.
  - __s 6y ago
    Don't worry I'm in full agreement, OOP is a terrible paradigm ever since it left Alan Kay's original inception which was closer to the has-a message passing paradigm that survives today. Rust's is a pleasure to use with traits instead of classes. Go's interface model is nice too, like a static duck typing. I've always preferred lots of interfaces in C# to abstract classes
  - Trasmatta 6y ago
    I'm sure it depends on the person and the disability, but I'm diabetic and would much rather be referred to as that rather than "a person with diabetes". That's just exhausting. Diabetes itself is awful. Whether or not it's the leading descriptor makes no difference with that, and I'd rather just use the non awkward terminology ("I'm diabetic" rather than "I'm a person with diabetes".) It would feel almost patronizing if everyone started referring to me that way.
at_a_remove 6y ago
It is the currently accepted term on the Euphemism Treadmill. In my lifetime alone I have seen it go through colored people (perhaps the original source of your discomfort? and the "CP" in "NAACP"), Negro, black, Afro-American (which was brief but it doesn't mean I didn't have to rename a lot of anchor texts when the academic departments changed names to ...), African-American, then back to black, people of color, now finally capital B Black, with "people of color" apparently now a broader term of usage.
- cdelsolar 6y ago
  sorry that black people's existence and struggles made you change a few links here and there
  - allknowingfrog 6y ago
    That's a pretty un-generous interpretation. This whole thread revolves around the idea that changing a label is a hollow gesture. The author of the parent comment seems to be making the same point about terms like "Afro-American" and "People of Color".
  - dang 6y ago
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Be kind. Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Narann 6y ago
> Is “person of color” an okay thing to say in US? I'm not English native so that could be the wrong term, not trying to offend anyone. In this context, I mean "discriminated persons/peoples". IIRC, I saw this on the rules of r/publicfreakout (stating that videos representing "POC" would be moderated). For me "POC" means "Proof Of Concept", so I asked and discover it was about "Person Of Color" and so I use this on English spoken Internet. But I agree, it's a weird term and I never use this in my native language. Each country have different way to talk about racism and discrimination because each country have it's own racism and discrimination problems.
munchbunny 6y ago
Yes. Just think of it as a formalism - it's the currently culturally accepted term if that's the group you're trying to reference. Lots of languages have a fuzzy formal/casual split where usage is both context-based and a matter of respect, though I think the US is more unique in (1) the degree of energy focused towards coming up with formal names for demographic groups and (2) making them out of words that are also used casually.
hinkley 6y ago
It’s been a self label for some time. Given the fact that there is a lot of horizontal aggression built into The System, getting everyone to pull in more or less the same direction is progress in its own right. The terminology seems to be shifting to BIPOC, to include Indigenous peoples. I haven’t heard an a explanation for why Black is also split out.
foofoo4u 6y ago
Great question about the term "people of color". Reminds me of when Apple posted on their home page, "Racial Equity and Justice Initiative. For equitable education. For a more just justice system. And for Black and Brown businesses.". The part that particularly rubs me the wrong way is the term "Brown" people. And it’s uppercase. Who wants to be called a "Brown" person? I’ve never heard anyone called that before in my life. It’s incredibly degrading and reductionary. If I am Mexican or Indian, the last thing I want to be labeled is "Brown". Thanks for reducing me down to a single divisive term. What is perplexing is that somehow this term is ok and so is "black" and "white". But saying "yellow" or "red" is offensive. This inconsistency is absurd. Those that are pushing this language somehow think they are morally superior to those of the past. But in reality, they have stepped right into their way of thinking — seeing people by "color" and categorizing society based on it.
- bobsmooth 6y ago
  >Who wants to be called a "Brown" person? In high school, there were kids that called themselves brown, but it was always ironically.

justAnIdea 6y ago

Big tech better make sure that they don't fly too close to the sun. The sun being socialist takeover of the U.S. (i.e. true progressives, whose links to socialism are undeniable, taking over the democratic party). Because most of them would not came out of that transformation unscathed.

ipsum2 6y ago

POC means people of color, aka non-white, yes? There's a lot of Indian and east Asian representation in the tech workforce. You should be more specific about what you mean.