12 ms·
> Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought whe
by mpyne 5y ago
> Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence.
This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought when he shut the thread down then that might explain part of the outcry.
The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business.
This still isn't "cause and effect", where anyone who chuckles at a funny name is fated to be building the next Stormfront unless stopped by an intrepid band of culture warriors. But we've known since Ben Franklin that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, so under the 'pyramid of hate' argument, a company trying to foster a safe workplace for all workers should strive to keep potential racism from turning into a problem by enforcing standards of workplace conduct that don't wait for actual racism.
Just like we build secure software by building security in early into the release process.
Just like we build functional and well-integrated software by building the testing early into the release process.
Just like we avoid pest infestation by keeping the food off of the tables and floors. On and on it goes.
The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRQBtDtZTGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRQBtDtZTGA
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. Funny. That's the same thing the right-wingers are saying. > Just like we avoid pest infestation Well that's a nice phrase for a discussion of genocide.
- tanseydavid 5y ago>> Funny. That's the same thing the right-wingers are saying. Your wording seems to have an unstated but implied meaning to it, but I am not getting what it is. Could you explain the implied meaning if you intended one?
- didgeoridoo 5y ago> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence This is just a rehash of broken-windows theory, whether its proponents know it or not. The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there. There is zero evidence behind the “pyramid of hate” — it makes a shallow kind of sense, but has no basis in the real world. An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what this kind of hysteria promotes.
- nemothekid 5y ago>An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. I'm sorry - I need help in understanding how this "equally valid". To me this seems like a justification ex post facto to defend "jokes", but it seems to fly in the face history. I find it hard to reconcile that post-slavery attitudes about race in America came about because people were no longer allowed to make jokes. Alternatively this kind of explanation hand waves away the cultural history that makes those jokes funny in the first place. To note, I believe that DHH handled this situation horribly which has caused the situation to escalate to epic proportions. The adult thing to do when you come across a rather juvenile list of "funny" names to accept that you were wrong and move on. To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup.
- didgeoridoo 5y agoI want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?
- nemothekid 5y ago
- BurningFrog 5y ago> "The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into..." If this is such a common path, why have I never heard of it happening? How common is this chain of events? What are some documented cases?
- benjohnson 5y agoThankfully it doesn't happen at all or we have a genocide for every comedian.
- mpyne 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe
- shkkmo 5y agoIs there any evidence for this progression or that censorship halts this progression? In mind, there plenty of other good reasons to promote good workplace conduct and prohibit racist speech.
- riquito 5y ago> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business. Aren't you (or whoever makes these claims) purposely stopping the "pyramid of hate" where you see fit? You could go on and say "people who joke", "people who talk", "people who meet". You just set the bar where you find a culprit/cause you are willing to demonize, as if it was that clear cut
- bmm6o 5y agoWhat does "people who talk" even mean here? I gather it's supposed to parallel "people who joke about the 'funny' names of people different from them", but how does the phrase end?
- riquito 5y agoSorry, not my mother language. I meant "people who meet and talk to each other"
- bmm6o 5y agoAre you really asking why the line is drawn between "just making harmless jokes" and "making jokes at the expense of another group"? You don't have to agree, but I think the difference and why someone would suggest that's where the line should be drawn is obvious.
- hokumguru 5y agoIs this not just the textbook definition of the slippery slope fallacy?
- mpyne 5y ago> as if it was that clear cut My friend, I truly wish interpersonal interaction were 'clear cut', but that is not how things work. And merely wishing that things worked this way does not make it so.