7 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
  I want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    >An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      He isn't making the claim, he is saying both claims are equally valid hypotheses (before you test against reality.)
    - didgeoridoo 5y ago
      Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - mpyne 5y ago
        > jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide. Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
    - ddingus 5y ago
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Humor has a long history as use as a coping mechanism for difficult situations. Both hypotheses are extremely difficult to prove or disprove and most likely, neither is strictly true. Human society is complicated / varied and I find it quite possible that there are times where hatred progressed both directions on that pyramid. There are also probably times where good natured blowing of of steam help prevent difficult situations from devolving and times where it inflamed hatred. I don't understand what would make one theory "ex post facto" and the other not since both have similar temporal positioning... But I don't think the point was to justify the jokes, I think the point was to call into question the epistemic justifications. > To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior What defense was offered? This list was openly acknowledged as unprofessional, inappropriate, and something that should have been caught sooner.
- prawn 5y ago
  I read both his pieces where he did apologise for the list (that he wasn't directly part of, but had overlooked). And then from my reading, he did try to shut down escalation and move on.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  > 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. This is exactly what he did. > 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. He didn’t try to defend the list he just didn’t believe the idea that this list had some sorta deep seated root in racism. There were just as many “funny” Anglo/European names as Asian/African/etc from what I understand. He called out ppl trying to act self righteous when they themselves participated in the list making in the recent past and said this list is not proof of deep-seated racism in the company. That wasn’t good enough for the activists so they revolted. ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.
Tagbert 5y ago
The Ugandan violence started by efforts to make one group feel like the other group was foreign and illegitimate. that then progresses to dehumanizing talk. When the violence started people were already considering the other side to be less than human. I’m not saying that that is where Basecamp was headed but this kind of disrespectful treatment of people does warp people attitudes. It’s also painful when you find it directed at yourself.
- ceres 5y ago
  > The Ugandan Surely you mean Rwanda?
  - kingsuper20 5y ago
    Perhaps both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Uganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand...
wmoxam 5y ago
> The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' (see: Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) to desensitize people to hatred towards the Tutsis is well documented. It was unpopular to speak out against this sort of thing, and certainly was something that got worse over time. Further, racial violence in the Americas didn't start with jokes either, it started with the genocide the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and continued with the trans-Atlantic slave trade ...
- Ygg2 5y ago
  > Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgian colonists literally preferring one group over the other. Raising animosity between two groups of essentially genetically same people. Hutus used the identity cards colonists left to target their purges. I'd say those influenced genocide way, way more, than some radio jokes. Edit: I think it's easier to believe that if we didn't make a jokes here and there we could have prevented an atrocity. It's an easy and quick solution to a complex question. I think the situation was way more messy and way more muddy. Jokes didn't help but stopping them wouldn't have stopped the genocide.
  - jariel 5y ago
    Although colonialism played a role, 'it started' before that. It's fair to at least 'talk about' the 'pyramid of hate' and maybe 'believe in it' so as to 'make a point'. But I don't think it's ok to accuse regular, well-meaning employers of 'holding up systems of White Supremacy'. It's also basically tone-deaf for an executive, facing a 'sensitive moment' to challenge claims of racism with 'reverse racism' - even if the executive might have a rhetorical point - it's just going to inflame the situation. I think the execs should have basically 'not acted out of contempt', said some conciliatory things and moved on. Even if they had a legit point to make, they're supposed to be 'bigger than that'. So I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to dig into the rhetoric, but rather, they should have just found a way past the issue. Finally, it's a good example of how toxic this stuff can be.
alsetmusic 5y ago
Dehumanization is a key element in tolerating mistreatment of others. Inflicting atrocities carries a psychological toll that can be lessened if the victims are seen as less deserving of compassion. Name calling is an early step in this process.
- SvenMarquardt 5y ago
  Which is why it is imperative society push back against the vilification of any race, including whites.
  - myWindoonn 5y ago
    Humans only form one race. You're thinking of skin tones.
    - username90 5y ago
      Humans forms a spectrum of races. The unscientific part are the crude categories USA uses, not the concept that humans from different parts of the world are genetically different enough to be called different races.
      - type0 5y ago
        > not the concept that humans from different parts of the world are genetically different enough to be called different races. This definition was invented by Nazi Germany and led to countless horrors, are you sure you want to continue to use it?
        username90 5y ago
        The definition wasn't invented by Nazi Germany, what are you talking about?
- loopz 5y ago
  Dehumanization is part of psychopathic processes.
JPKab 5y ago
I agree with you 100%. Utilization of the pyramid of hate in this way makes me feel like it's just a retroactive justification of hypersensitive behavior amongst overly fragile employees. Honestly a lot of times it's not even hypersensitivity so much is just overt paranoia. You're on the money about encouraging people to form their identities around these characteristics. Instead of having a conversation about excessive police militarization and police brutality directed at all American citizens we had it around one group. In the US 75% of the people killed by police each year are not black and nobody knows their names because the media has caused Americans to think that it's a issue unique to, rather than disproportionate for black Americans. Instead of having a unifying and inclusive movement for police reform we got a politically weaponized racially polarizing movement.
- didgeoridoo 5y ago
  > Instead of having a unifying and inclusive movement for police reform we got a politically weaponized racially polarizing movement. Yep. Watching (unarmed, white) Daniel Shaver weeping and begging for his life as he crawled on his hands and knees down the hallway before officer Philip Brailsford executed him with a spray of bullets — that was as clear-cut a case as you could get that the police in many districts are NOT policing their own as much as they should. In many ways, there is a straight line from Brailsford to Chauvin: a cop with lots of citizen complaints and a bad attitude ends up killing someone who didn’t need to die. Race, even when it is a factor, is an unnecessary distraction from the bigger picture.
isleyaardvark 5y ago
> Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. The concern was that some of these “funny names” were based on laughing at other people’s race, national origin, etc. That’s the opposite of promoting it.
tshaddox 5y ago
> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Umm, isn't the notion that catharsis is an effective method of anger reduction also at best controversial?

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 ago
I want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    He isn't making the claim, he is saying both claims are equally valid hypotheses (before you test against reality.)
  - didgeoridoo 5y ago
    Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mpyne 5y ago
      > jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide. Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
  - ddingus 5y ago
shkkmo 5y ago
Humor has a long history as use as a coping mechanism for difficult situations. Both hypotheses are extremely difficult to prove or disprove and most likely, neither is strictly true. Human society is complicated / varied and I find it quite possible that there are times where hatred progressed both directions on that pyramid. There are also probably times where good natured blowing of of steam help prevent difficult situations from devolving and times where it inflamed hatred. I don't understand what would make one theory "ex post facto" and the other not since both have similar temporal positioning... But I don't think the point was to justify the jokes, I think the point was to call into question the epistemic justifications. > To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior What defense was offered? This list was openly acknowledged as unprofessional, inappropriate, and something that should have been caught sooner.
prawn 5y ago
I read both his pieces where he did apologise for the list (that he wasn't directly part of, but had overlooked). And then from my reading, he did try to shut down escalation and move on.
vxNsr 5y ago
> 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. This is exactly what he did. > 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. He didn’t try to defend the list he just didn’t believe the idea that this list had some sorta deep seated root in racism. There were just as many “funny” Anglo/European names as Asian/African/etc from what I understand. He called out ppl trying to act self righteous when they themselves participated in the list making in the recent past and said this list is not proof of deep-seated racism in the company. That wasn’t good enough for the activists so they revolted. ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.

Tagbert 5y ago

The Ugandan violence started by efforts to make one group feel like the other group was foreign and illegitimate. that then progresses to dehumanizing talk. When the violence started people were already considering the other side to be less than human. I’m not saying that that is where Basecamp was headed but this kind of disrespectful treatment of people does warp people attitudes. It’s also painful when you find it directed at yourself.

ceres 5y ago
> The Ugandan Surely you mean Rwanda?
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  Perhaps both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Uganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand...

wmoxam 5y ago

> The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' (see: Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) to desensitize people to hatred towards the Tutsis is well documented. It was unpopular to speak out against this sort of thing, and certainly was something that got worse over time. Further, racial violence in the Americas didn't start with jokes either, it started with the genocide the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and continued with the trans-Atlantic slave trade ...

Ygg2 5y ago
> Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgian colonists literally preferring one group over the other. Raising animosity between two groups of essentially genetically same people. Hutus used the identity cards colonists left to target their purges. I'd say those influenced genocide way, way more, than some radio jokes. Edit: I think it's easier to believe that if we didn't make a jokes here and there we could have prevented an atrocity. It's an easy and quick solution to a complex question. I think the situation was way more messy and way more muddy. Jokes didn't help but stopping them wouldn't have stopped the genocide.
- jariel 5y ago
  Although colonialism played a role, 'it started' before that. It's fair to at least 'talk about' the 'pyramid of hate' and maybe 'believe in it' so as to 'make a point'. But I don't think it's ok to accuse regular, well-meaning employers of 'holding up systems of White Supremacy'. It's also basically tone-deaf for an executive, facing a 'sensitive moment' to challenge claims of racism with 'reverse racism' - even if the executive might have a rhetorical point - it's just going to inflame the situation. I think the execs should have basically 'not acted out of contempt', said some conciliatory things and moved on. Even if they had a legit point to make, they're supposed to be 'bigger than that'. So I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to dig into the rhetoric, but rather, they should have just found a way past the issue. Finally, it's a good example of how toxic this stuff can be.

alsetmusic 5y ago

Dehumanization is a key element in tolerating mistreatment of others. Inflicting atrocities carries a psychological toll that can be lessened if the victims are seen as less deserving of compassion. Name calling is an early step in this process.

SvenMarquardt 5y ago
Which is why it is imperative society push back against the vilification of any race, including whites.
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  Humans only form one race. You're thinking of skin tones.
  - username90 5y ago
    Humans forms a spectrum of races. The unscientific part are the crude categories USA uses, not the concept that humans from different parts of the world are genetically different enough to be called different races.
    - type0 5y ago
      > not the concept that humans from different parts of the world are genetically different enough to be called different races. This definition was invented by Nazi Germany and led to countless horrors, are you sure you want to continue to use it?
      - username90 5y ago
        The definition wasn't invented by Nazi Germany, what are you talking about?
loopz 5y ago
Dehumanization is part of psychopathic processes.

JPKab 5y ago

I agree with you 100%. Utilization of the pyramid of hate in this way makes me feel like it's just a retroactive justification of hypersensitive behavior amongst overly fragile employees. Honestly a lot of times it's not even hypersensitivity so much is just overt paranoia. You're on the money about encouraging people to form their identities around these characteristics. Instead of having a conversation about excessive police militarization and police brutality directed at all American citizens we had it around one group. In the US 75% of the people killed by police each year are not black and nobody knows their names because the media has caused Americans to think that it's a issue unique to, rather than disproportionate for black Americans. Instead of having a unifying and inclusive movement for police reform we got a politically weaponized racially polarizing movement.

didgeoridoo 5y ago
> Instead of having a unifying and inclusive movement for police reform we got a politically weaponized racially polarizing movement. Yep. Watching (unarmed, white) Daniel Shaver weeping and begging for his life as he crawled on his hands and knees down the hallway before officer Philip Brailsford executed him with a spray of bullets — that was as clear-cut a case as you could get that the police in many districts are NOT policing their own as much as they should. In many ways, there is a straight line from Brailsford to Chauvin: a cop with lots of citizen complaints and a bad attitude ends up killing someone who didn’t need to die. Race, even when it is a factor, is an unnecessary distraction from the bigger picture.

isleyaardvark 5y ago

> Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. The concern was that some of these “funny names” were based on laughing at other people’s race, national origin, etc. That’s the opposite of promoting it.

tshaddox 5y ago

> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Umm, isn't the notion that catharsis is an effective method of anger reduction also at best controversial?