3 ms·

So, the subject has proven toxic once again. I submitted my option, got +16 positive vote and a rather civilized (and reasonably big) discussion tree but got fl

So, the subject has proven toxic once again. I submitted my option, got +16 positive vote and a rather civilized (and reasonably big) discussion tree but got flagged.

runarberg 6y ago
There was a resent discussion about the implicit downranking of topics around diversity and inclusion[1]. It is in fact listed among the undocumented features of Hacker News[2]. Although I consider this a bug not a feature. Some of the comments here are indeed interesting and I have learned stuff reading through it. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26867142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26867142 2: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#implicit-downranking-of-topics-around-diversity-and-inclusion https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#implic...
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I read [2] to mean that it’s a human bug/feature rather part of the computer system in HN (“implicit” meaning “emergent”).
- hnbad 6y ago
  Their "option" prompting the "rather civilized" discussion was that skin tone modifiers are the real racism. Dang flagged it as flamebait, which it was. The HN audience has a certain political bias which results in discussions around diversity, inclusion and racism always going downhill fast. But this is separate from and only tangentially related to the implicit downranking you're mentioning (tho I'm sure this decision is motivated by a desire not to have front-page comments be this blatantly tilted towards this particular political "slant").
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    What I meant under "rather civilized" was it didn't seem "going downhill" - I didn't notice any hate speech or pointless arguments in the discussion followed, only people reasonably expressing what they think in a calm manner. I myself didn't intend any bait but expressed my genuine thoughts on the subject. I am not sure if you cared to understand the point rather than stick to the first sentence yet I'm hesitant to explain it as I have little doubt at least somebody will flag it again. I don't believe sustainable organic progress is possible in the areas where discussion and opinion diversity is not allowed though. Even if there is in fact only one opinion which really is right (e.g. like in the flat Earth discussion) people sharing it have to listen to the opponents and explain it to them with patience and care if they want to make change (despite the fact most of the opponents won't listen - some will, among lurkers especially).
    - shigawire 6y ago
      Flame bait doesn't have to mean intentional baiting. It may be that your comments will surely lead to flame wars so the moderator would rather not deal with it.
    - hnbad 6y ago
      Having a calm and well-mannered conversation doesn't mean much. It's possible to state the most outrageous and appalling opinions calmly and politely and then dismiss any passionate and emotional response as "uncivil". Most long-time HN readers will remember A Modest Proposal from one of the many previous times it has been referenced, which demonstrates this principle quite neatly by presenting a truly monstrous proposition in the calmest and most soft-spoken way possible to make a point about the cruelty inherent in the issue it addresses. It's not necessarily always the form of conversation that's undesirable. Far more important is the content. HN has a bias towards form over content sometimes but it seems that in this case Dang clearly flagged it for content, not form. Your argument looks like it can be summarized as: 1. Acknowledging racial categories is racist. 2. Acknowledging racial categories is harmful. 3. Skin tone modifiers acknowledge racial categories. Therefore skin tone modifiers are bad. But the first premise is already blatantly malformed: when most people say something is "racist" they either refer to prejudice and discrimination, or they refer to systemic injustices and power imbalances within society as a whole. Acknowledging that racial categories exist in our society is a requirement to acknowledge that racism in this sense exists at all and that it is harming people. What you're doing instead is inverting the semantics of "racist" (1) so that it frames the entire basis for being able to talk about these injustices as bad and harmful. This only works because you know that "racist" has this established meaning of being something that is harmful, which is something you don't even bother establishing for your new meaning (2). You also don't demonstrate the third premise. People in other comments on this article have already pointed out that prior to skin tone modifiers these emojis were defined as being often presented as yellow but also often as light skinned by default and in fact if you look at the original Japanese characters they were often presented as yellow outlines on a white background, suggestive of light skin. Others have also pointed out that while yellow is often considered a cartoonish skin color because of The Simpsons, the show clearly used yellow as a substitute for light skin as it portrayed Apu, Carl and other darker skinned characters with shades of brown instead. So while a solid yellow rendering might not be as clearly "white" as a light skinned rendering, it was still suggestive of light skin. But you don't make the argument that defaulting to implicit light skin is better than providing a range of options for specific skin colors in addition to the less specific default. You omit the argument completely and thus suggest the yellow would have been entirely neutral, which is demonstrably not the case. And in fact you mostly avoid stating any of these premises explicitly at all even if your claim depends on all of them. This means any criticism levelled at face value will likely read as incoherent (because it attacks a conclusion based on premises that were never stated) or irrelevant (because it attacks the premises themselves despite your comment not including them). But given how you use language in this comment and others, and the phrases you chose to sprinkle throughout, I'm fairly certain you know this. You're not interested in discussing whether providing skin tone modifiers was the right solution because you don't want people to even acknowledge the problem. You want to win based on appearances by provoking the other side into emotional reactions so you can claim to be rational without having to provide an actual argument or addressing any criticism.
- 1337shadow 6y ago
  Actually, I find this comment extremely uninteresting, not because of the blatant ad hominem sophism it primarily builds on, but because it's completely leaving out the discussion about why people would be defecting from their side to the other which I believe is happening in significant proportions. Yes, I believe D&I had the majority in tech but lost it along the way, and the polls I remember seeing confirm it.

So, the subject has proven toxic once again. I submitted my option, got +16 positive vote and a rather civilized (and reasonably big) discussion tree but got flagged.

runarberg 6y ago

There was a resent discussion about the implicit downranking of topics around diversity and inclusion[1]. It is in fact listed among the undocumented features of Hacker News[2]. Although I consider this a bug not a feature. Some of the comments here are indeed interesting and I have learned stuff reading through it. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26867142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26867142 2: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#implicit-downranking-of-topics-around-diversity-and-inclusion https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#implic...

sokoloff 6y ago
I read [2] to mean that it’s a human bug/feature rather part of the computer system in HN (“implicit” meaning “emergent”).
hnbad 6y ago
Their "option" prompting the "rather civilized" discussion was that skin tone modifiers are the real racism. Dang flagged it as flamebait, which it was. The HN audience has a certain political bias which results in discussions around diversity, inclusion and racism always going downhill fast. But this is separate from and only tangentially related to the implicit downranking you're mentioning (tho I'm sure this decision is motivated by a desire not to have front-page comments be this blatantly tilted towards this particular political "slant").
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  What I meant under "rather civilized" was it didn't seem "going downhill" - I didn't notice any hate speech or pointless arguments in the discussion followed, only people reasonably expressing what they think in a calm manner. I myself didn't intend any bait but expressed my genuine thoughts on the subject. I am not sure if you cared to understand the point rather than stick to the first sentence yet I'm hesitant to explain it as I have little doubt at least somebody will flag it again. I don't believe sustainable organic progress is possible in the areas where discussion and opinion diversity is not allowed though. Even if there is in fact only one opinion which really is right (e.g. like in the flat Earth discussion) people sharing it have to listen to the opponents and explain it to them with patience and care if they want to make change (despite the fact most of the opponents won't listen - some will, among lurkers especially).
  - shigawire 6y ago
    Flame bait doesn't have to mean intentional baiting. It may be that your comments will surely lead to flame wars so the moderator would rather not deal with it.
  - hnbad 6y ago
    Having a calm and well-mannered conversation doesn't mean much. It's possible to state the most outrageous and appalling opinions calmly and politely and then dismiss any passionate and emotional response as "uncivil". Most long-time HN readers will remember A Modest Proposal from one of the many previous times it has been referenced, which demonstrates this principle quite neatly by presenting a truly monstrous proposition in the calmest and most soft-spoken way possible to make a point about the cruelty inherent in the issue it addresses. It's not necessarily always the form of conversation that's undesirable. Far more important is the content. HN has a bias towards form over content sometimes but it seems that in this case Dang clearly flagged it for content, not form. Your argument looks like it can be summarized as: 1. Acknowledging racial categories is racist. 2. Acknowledging racial categories is harmful. 3. Skin tone modifiers acknowledge racial categories. Therefore skin tone modifiers are bad. But the first premise is already blatantly malformed: when most people say something is "racist" they either refer to prejudice and discrimination, or they refer to systemic injustices and power imbalances within society as a whole. Acknowledging that racial categories exist in our society is a requirement to acknowledge that racism in this sense exists at all and that it is harming people. What you're doing instead is inverting the semantics of "racist" (1) so that it frames the entire basis for being able to talk about these injustices as bad and harmful. This only works because you know that "racist" has this established meaning of being something that is harmful, which is something you don't even bother establishing for your new meaning (2). You also don't demonstrate the third premise. People in other comments on this article have already pointed out that prior to skin tone modifiers these emojis were defined as being often presented as yellow but also often as light skinned by default and in fact if you look at the original Japanese characters they were often presented as yellow outlines on a white background, suggestive of light skin. Others have also pointed out that while yellow is often considered a cartoonish skin color because of The Simpsons, the show clearly used yellow as a substitute for light skin as it portrayed Apu, Carl and other darker skinned characters with shades of brown instead. So while a solid yellow rendering might not be as clearly "white" as a light skinned rendering, it was still suggestive of light skin. But you don't make the argument that defaulting to implicit light skin is better than providing a range of options for specific skin colors in addition to the less specific default. You omit the argument completely and thus suggest the yellow would have been entirely neutral, which is demonstrably not the case. And in fact you mostly avoid stating any of these premises explicitly at all even if your claim depends on all of them. This means any criticism levelled at face value will likely read as incoherent (because it attacks a conclusion based on premises that were never stated) or irrelevant (because it attacks the premises themselves despite your comment not including them). But given how you use language in this comment and others, and the phrases you chose to sprinkle throughout, I'm fairly certain you know this. You're not interested in discussing whether providing skin tone modifiers was the right solution because you don't want people to even acknowledge the problem. You want to win based on appearances by provoking the other side into emotional reactions so you can claim to be rational without having to provide an actual argument or addressing any criticism.
1337shadow 6y ago
Actually, I find this comment extremely uninteresting, not because of the blatant ad hominem sophism it primarily builds on, but because it's completely leaving out the discussion about why people would be defecting from their side to the other which I believe is happening in significant proportions. Yes, I believe D&I had the majority in tech but lost it along the way, and the polls I remember seeing confirm it.