5 ms·

I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that" That would be stereotyping. You would not want to stereotype, woul

by cema 14y ago

I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that" That would be stereotyping. You would not want to stereotype, would you?

groby_b 14y ago
I've used this particular statement as a rhetorical device. But yes, yes I do. All the time. I try to catch myself doing it, and not let myself be influenced by it. Having biases/stereotyping is not the issue - we're predisposed to snap judgments. Recognizing it, and deciding how we act upon it is the issue. As such, I'm still OK with my statement. (Except that I'd re-edit to "majority often blinds people). I call out a condition that actually exists, and ask to take it into consideration - I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser. And had I followed this up with "and so you can't possibly get it, and you're a $INSULT, and you're intentionally suppressing women", then yes, you should call me out on this and tell me that I'm wrong. (And that my manners need fixing) Being part of a minority does not excuse bad behavior.
- obstacle1 14y ago
  >I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser 1. Drawing the category is in itself an act of segregation. 2. Claiming to know each person in a class of people better than they know themselves is inherently treating them as lesser. It is the definition of claiming superiority. "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!"
  - ibudiallo 14y ago
    This is a good example of focusing on the negativity. It could have been interpreted in so many different ways and I am sure your interpretation is not what the author meant. Before responding any further please re-read your message , then read it one more time.
    - obstacle1 14y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't play the new age game. Facts are facts and if you have an actual rebuttal I'd love to hear it.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        In the nicest way possible: You are coming off as extraordinarily abrasive. If you think that doesn't matter because "facts are facts", you must be new to human society.
        obstacle1 14y ago
        I don't mean to come off as _extraordinarily_ abrasive, though I do mean to convey my sentiment strongly. I do not think that overlooking the actual content of what somebody says in the name of "thinking positive" is good, or healthy, or itself positive at all. When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. Yet the person explicitly stated that (s)he did not segregate. That is a contradiction. I get what OP was probably trying to say, but (s)he emphatically did not say that. I see it all the time on HN and elsewhere: trying to fight one form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misogyny) with another form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misandry). As though this leads to some sort of mystic equilibrium where poof! all discrimination disappears. If human history can teach us anything it's that this equilibrium never happens. So maybe instead of allowing sloppy categorization and overlooking it in the name of staying positive, we should admit when we draw faulty distinctions and take pains to not make draw in the future.
        Cushman 14y ago
        > When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. So, look, here's the problem: that never happened. I shouldn't have to quote something that's just a few comments up, but here it is: "... I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that". To be very clear, not because I think all white males are mean-spirited misogynists. ... But because being part of the majority blinds people to minority issues."[0] Mind you, that's not the post you responded to. The post you responded to was a bit of a backpedaling from that utterly inoffensive statement. From that you read, quoting again, "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!" That sentiment or anything like it exists nowhere in anything that was said. That goes quite a bit farther than simply not assuming good faith. I used the term "extraordinarily abrasive" quite deliberately, since where your parent reads as reasoned and contrite, you come off as slightly psychotic. If that's the sentiment you intended strongly to convey, you have succeeded. [0] Neither here nor there, but as a white male I find nothing the least bit challenging in that. It's completely true (if a bit oversimplified).

by cema 14y ago

I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that" That would be stereotyping. You would not want to stereotype, would you?

groby_b 14y ago

I've used this particular statement as a rhetorical device. But yes, yes I do. All the time. I try to catch myself doing it, and not let myself be influenced by it. Having biases/stereotyping is not the issue - we're predisposed to snap judgments. Recognizing it, and deciding how we act upon it is the issue. As such, I'm still OK with my statement. (Except that I'd re-edit to "majority often blinds people). I call out a condition that actually exists, and ask to take it into consideration - I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser. And had I followed this up with "and so you can't possibly get it, and you're a $INSULT, and you're intentionally suppressing women", then yes, you should call me out on this and tell me that I'm wrong. (And that my manners need fixing) Being part of a minority does not excuse bad behavior.

obstacle1 14y ago
>I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser 1. Drawing the category is in itself an act of segregation. 2. Claiming to know each person in a class of people better than they know themselves is inherently treating them as lesser. It is the definition of claiming superiority. "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!"
- ibudiallo 14y ago
  This is a good example of focusing on the negativity. It could have been interpreted in so many different ways and I am sure your interpretation is not what the author meant. Before responding any further please re-read your message , then read it one more time.
  - obstacle1 14y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't play the new age game. Facts are facts and if you have an actual rebuttal I'd love to hear it.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      In the nicest way possible: You are coming off as extraordinarily abrasive. If you think that doesn't matter because "facts are facts", you must be new to human society.
      - obstacle1 14y ago
        I don't mean to come off as _extraordinarily_ abrasive, though I do mean to convey my sentiment strongly. I do not think that overlooking the actual content of what somebody says in the name of "thinking positive" is good, or healthy, or itself positive at all. When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. Yet the person explicitly stated that (s)he did not segregate. That is a contradiction. I get what OP was probably trying to say, but (s)he emphatically did not say that. I see it all the time on HN and elsewhere: trying to fight one form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misogyny) with another form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misandry). As though this leads to some sort of mystic equilibrium where poof! all discrimination disappears. If human history can teach us anything it's that this equilibrium never happens. So maybe instead of allowing sloppy categorization and overlooking it in the name of staying positive, we should admit when we draw faulty distinctions and take pains to not make draw in the future.
        Cushman 14y ago
        > When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. So, look, here's the problem: that never happened. I shouldn't have to quote something that's just a few comments up, but here it is: "... I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that". To be very clear, not because I think all white males are mean-spirited misogynists. ... But because being part of the majority blinds people to minority issues."[0] Mind you, that's not the post you responded to. The post you responded to was a bit of a backpedaling from that utterly inoffensive statement. From that you read, quoting again, "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!" That sentiment or anything like it exists nowhere in anything that was said. That goes quite a bit farther than simply not assuming good faith. I used the term "extraordinarily abrasive" quite deliberately, since where your parent reads as reasoned and contrite, you come off as slightly psychotic. If that's the sentiment you intended strongly to convey, you have succeeded. [0] Neither here nor there, but as a white male I find nothing the least bit challenging in that. It's completely true (if a bit oversimplified).