7 ms·

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtl

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. They're just another small-p political tool to be used by politically minded people to exert social control.

Zikes 12y ago
The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".
- mcguire 12y ago
  "...someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not" It's good that you can recognize that you are being offensive and honest enough not to let embarrassment prevent you from reacting appropriately when you are. [Yes, I rather expected this to be down-voted.]
- davorak 12y ago
  > The ban on debates is particularly jarring. That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification, concrete examples, how it has a negative effect. > if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. It has not thing with being or having intent to be homophobic, sexist, etc. It is about some phrases being much more likely to have such intent and meaning in society in general. It is unrealistic to expect a N random someones hearing a subtl-ism to understand the speaker's internal meaning of a phrase or word. While those N random people should endeavor to not jump to conclusions about the speakers internal meaning, for the most part all they can go off of is how society uses the word/phrase.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    >> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. >That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification.... Only if such is not going to interfere with the current discussion, instruction, or other activity, which presumably represents what you are all there for, at that time. Which might be the reason for banning debates: "Take it offline."
- beering 12y ago
  Perhaps not the most subtle example: I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral. If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.
  - Zikes 12y ago
    You can manufacture as many straw-man examples as you like, but it won't matter. My comment did not say that I said anything specific or anything that could or should be construed as offensive. Is it really so hard to believe that I did not say something offensive? Is it impossible to think that the person doing the call-out can be in the wrong, that they might be imagining or even willfully manufacturing an emotional distress? Are we all now to be beholden to the whims and fancies of those that continually reshape the landscape of political correctness in an effort to exercise a modicum of control or power over their peers? My proposed solution is simple: if someone tries the call-out method and they are in the wrong, you reply in a manner that is just as direct and non-confrontational. "No, it wasn't."
  - wmj 12y ago
    > Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot Would you? Let's test it. Your whole comment is a subtle -ism because I say so. Apologize for it and retract it immediately.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- thumbtackthief 12y ago
  Is there a chance you said something that others would consider homophobic or sexist when that's not what you intended? Is there a chance others could have a different interpretation of your casual remarks?
  - Zikes 12y ago
    Is there a chance? Certainly. Should we let everyone's internalized emotional damage be projected onto society at large? Certainly not. If we're going to let everyone interpret our words however they wish, then the entire concept of language becomes meaningless.
    - thumbtackthief 12y ago
      Personally, I want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. If the offense was unintentional, I then can decide whether saying that thing was important enough to me to warrant upsetting someone else. Maybe it was. Usually it's not. I suppose some people might prefer living in a bubble where they never have to think about how what they say impacts other people, but I was glad to go to Hacker School where that wasn't the case.
      - Zikes 12y ago
        I would also want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. It gives me an opportunity to re-evaluate my words, and reply accordingly. The reply might be "oops, sorry", or it might be "no, it wasn't." Thats the argument here. If further debate or discussion were necessary following that exchange, I would welcome it, but "oops, sorry" cannot and should not be the default because it assumes that whomever takes the defensive first is always in the right, and that is its own "bubble" worth worrying about.
        thumbtackthief 12y ago
        Again, the 'no debate' is more two-pronged: 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible, and 2) Keep the debate private, as opposed to long threads on the HS boards that just deteriorate into this. The one time I was accused of being subtly-sexist, I disagreed with the commenter and I told her so (privately). She stuck to her point, and by the end I didn't 100% agree with her and I thought she was being a little sensitive; _however_ I'll still be more careful in the future. Whether or not I agree that she should have been offended is irrelevant: I said something that offended her, she seems like a nice enough person, and making that tiny switch in my language was a small-enough sacrifice that I was happy to err on the side of caution.
- ibejoeb 12y ago
  Now we watch as the debate happens here by throwaway proxy. I'm certainly not going to attend HS, so do what you want, I suppose. I probably won't be hiring anyone who comes out of the program, either. I can't imagine interacting with a product of this environment. So conditioned to avoid not just confrontation but plain discourse. This is a social lobotomy.
  - thumbtackthief 12y ago
    It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.
    - ibejoeb 12y ago
      I'm going after the debate embargo. I don't think it's good for business. I choose not to embrace it. I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity. I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading of the rules, that's a no-no. I'm glad we're not following those rules here, because now we can have this argument. At least until we declare a moratorium on argument.
      - thumbtackthief 12y ago
        "After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels." I don't see anything wrong with keeping such discussions private. Especially when you are dealing with a minority standing up for himself or herself, keeping it to one-on-one instead of having to face off against a squadron of privileged people who for the first time in history are being asked to acknowledge viewpoints other than their own seems like a decent idea to me.
        wmj 12y ago
        If a false allegation has been made publicly, then it must be debunked publicly as well. Otherwise, it remains as such in people's minds. It's both illegal and immoral.
fred_durst 12y ago
I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. When a mistake is vague and hard to understand, there becomes a certain amount of probability involved in making a mistake. Therefore those who are the most active could end up with the most mistakes. In this case, those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". This policy may simply reward the quiet students and discourage active verbal and written communication and do little to discourage borderline behavior.
- davorak 12y ago
  > I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples. They do try to address this issue by making the "social rules are lightweight" and tell students "feel free to talk to faculty." > those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". If the social rules are light then it is more important the student is learning to reduce their use of subtle-ism more then it is that it happens every once in a while.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - wmj 12y ago
    > If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples. Or to reject the accusation. That's also fine. It's fine especially when the accusation is absolute and utter bullshit. If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court.
    - davorak 12y ago
      > If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court. This makes me think you are not talking about lightweight social rules at private institution.
bitJericho 12y ago
Oh you don't like my "well-actually?" How bout you go sod off XD
nicholasjbs 12y ago
Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. This is in no way a "shaming ritual." It isn't intended to be one, and it hasn't become one in practice. I'm one of the founders of Hacker School. I can't stand politics. If these rules actually created the environment you're imagining, we'd get rid of them immediately. Thankfully, we have several years of experience now and we've found that having lightweight social rules makes Hacker School a much better place for everyone, and it's by far the least political environment I've ever been in.
- nawitus 12y ago
  Accusation of sexism (etc.) is public and brings shame to the accused (whether or not the accused is guilty). It's also clearly a ritual. In conclusion, I think these social rules explained the blog article are indeed shaming rituals. You might not agree, which is not surprising since you're one of the founders.
  - thumbtackthief 12y ago
    Just like anything else, tactful people will do this privately and with discretion.
    - wmj 12y ago
      That's not what the rules dictate.
    - Chris2048 12y ago
      Is this an "..all reasonable people" argument?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ahh 12y ago
  > If these rules actually created the environment you're imagining Of course they don't, for the people you think are high status. Male losers like me get hosed, but who cares what kulaks think?
mcguire 12y ago
"Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. They're just another small-p political tool to be used by politically minded people to exert social control." This is absolutely true. The only thing that will improve someone's manners is their mother slapping them when they got out of hand while growing up. Once they're an adult, their concepts of social roles and the appropriate ways of interacting with others are fixed. The only path of improvement is for them to die off.
- HarrietJones 12y ago
  Thanks for the sarcasm. We're not talking about egregious examples of bad behaviour. These subtle-isms are vague; they're hard to identify and explain; they crop up unconsciously. It's not bad manners if you don't know you've upset someone, or you're unaware that you're enforcing damaging social norms. We should change & we should question our moral compasses. For me, this is an absolute. But the proposed solution only works in situations where all actors are acting in good faith. It's too easily subverted. I have no beef with Hacker School for trying this, but time and again, groups that work within these frameworks devolve into politicking and rules lawyering.
samstokes 12y ago
Having met some of the Hacker School faculty (though not the OP) and discussed their social rules, I don't believe this is a shaming ritual, in intent or practice. I think it's more like a code review. "You need to check for a null pointer there." "I think what you said was subtly racist." "Did you think about making this its own class? It might be easier to test that way." "That was a well-actually." The intent is to educate, not to punish; and I think the expected response is more "oh yeah, good point!" than "I'm sorry".
- jamesbritt 12y ago
  I think the expected response is more "oh yeah, good point!" than "I'm sorry". Both responses assume that the assessment was correct, and that's a problem. The subtly critical part of the exchange takes place in public. If there's agreement that may happen publicly, but if there's disagreement it happens privately. FTFA: After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels. If you are a third party, and you don't see what could be biased about the comment that was made, feel free to talk to faculty. It then become the responsibility of those around you to go find out what really went on when someone made an unfavorable claim about you. I realize the goal is to avoid prolonged "No it wasn't" "Yes it was" exchanges but this approach is asymmetrical in favoring accusation over rebuttal.
thumbtackthief 12y ago
I went to Hacker School, and I need to clarify: The 'no debate' really should read 'no public debate'. I have been on both sides of the subtle -ism 'violation', and when I was the one called out, I had a lengthy private discussion with the person who called me out on it. I believe that was fine: The goal of not having public debate is to remove the defensiveness as well as to keep innocent bystanders from being drawn in and making a big issue out of something small.
antics 12y ago
I was in the Summer 2013 batch. Since this is the top-voted comment, let me be emphatic. The assumptions the parent comment makes about the HS experience bear no resemblance to reality. A good example is the consistent theme in this thread that such a rule can't exist without a shaming ritual, or without loss of being considered an adult. The context we're missing here is that participants at HS are self-selecting. One person in our batch quit his job as director of investment technology at a massive international bank to attend HS; another was a high school student. In all cases, participation represents serious costs of opportunity, time, and capital, and almost always, the reason they do it is because: Fundamentally, participants already believe in the assumptions of the environment. There is room for this theoretical debate about whether x policy extends to good rules for all of society. But realistically, the HS rules are effective because people at HS agree with them. To have this discussion without this specific context is to miss the point entirely. That is why the rule can be lightweight, and can still be incredibly effective. And if you don't think that's true, then I suggest you poll a nontrivial subset of HS, because almost everyone agrees.
- Zikes 12y ago
  > To have this discussion without this specific context is to miss the point entirely. The first sentence of the article: > We've enjoyed seeing our social rules spread into other parts of the tech community. The debate here is around whether or not these rules would work in other environments.
  - antics 12y ago
    Yeah, and you can't have that discussion without understanding why it works for HS. By ignoring this context, the parent comment, and your comment here, debate a position that was never posited at all. In some sense you are debating yourselves.
    - Zikes 12y ago
      I actually agree, but I think it's a debate worth having. Clearly, this system works for Hacker School. Kudos. This system is also being advertised for wider implementation, possibly into communities and companies that all of us are a part of, and any broad social reform deserves a good deal of scrutiny before implementation. A key part of these rules, in particular, is the potential for abuse and the sorts of implications they have on the culture that implements them.
gluejar 12y ago
When the concept of "subtleism" (note the spelling) was explained to me by one of the Hacker School founders, I thought it was brilliant. Precisely because it transformed a "shaming ritual" into an olive branch. The idea is that subtleist remarks are NOT *-ist, individually, but the aggregate of hundreds of subtleisms could be oppressive. So, nothing's wrong with saying "you guys", if only it didn't come in a flood of subtleisms. It's ok, you're forgiven, but we can do better. Compare the word "micro-aggression". That's an accusation and the beginning of on argument. "Subtleism", by contrast, is a word to promote healing.

Zikes 12y ago

The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".

mcguire 12y ago
"...someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not" It's good that you can recognize that you are being offensive and honest enough not to let embarrassment prevent you from reacting appropriately when you are. [Yes, I rather expected this to be down-voted.]
davorak 12y ago
> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification, concrete examples, how it has a negative effect. > if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. It has not thing with being or having intent to be homophobic, sexist, etc. It is about some phrases being much more likely to have such intent and meaning in society in general. It is unrealistic to expect a N random someones hearing a subtl-ism to understand the speaker's internal meaning of a phrase or word. While those N random people should endeavor to not jump to conclusions about the speakers internal meaning, for the most part all they can go off of is how society uses the word/phrase.
- mcguire 12y ago
  >> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. >That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification.... Only if such is not going to interfere with the current discussion, instruction, or other activity, which presumably represents what you are all there for, at that time. Which might be the reason for banning debates: "Take it offline."
beering 12y ago
Perhaps not the most subtle example: I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral. If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.
- Zikes 12y ago
  You can manufacture as many straw-man examples as you like, but it won't matter. My comment did not say that I said anything specific or anything that could or should be construed as offensive. Is it really so hard to believe that I did not say something offensive? Is it impossible to think that the person doing the call-out can be in the wrong, that they might be imagining or even willfully manufacturing an emotional distress? Are we all now to be beholden to the whims and fancies of those that continually reshape the landscape of political correctness in an effort to exercise a modicum of control or power over their peers? My proposed solution is simple: if someone tries the call-out method and they are in the wrong, you reply in a manner that is just as direct and non-confrontational. "No, it wasn't."
- wmj 12y ago
  > Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot Would you? Let's test it. Your whole comment is a subtle -ism because I say so. Apologize for it and retract it immediately.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
thumbtackthief 12y ago
Is there a chance you said something that others would consider homophobic or sexist when that's not what you intended? Is there a chance others could have a different interpretation of your casual remarks?
- Zikes 12y ago
  Is there a chance? Certainly. Should we let everyone's internalized emotional damage be projected onto society at large? Certainly not. If we're going to let everyone interpret our words however they wish, then the entire concept of language becomes meaningless.
  - thumbtackthief 12y ago
    Personally, I want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. If the offense was unintentional, I then can decide whether saying that thing was important enough to me to warrant upsetting someone else. Maybe it was. Usually it's not. I suppose some people might prefer living in a bubble where they never have to think about how what they say impacts other people, but I was glad to go to Hacker School where that wasn't the case.
    - Zikes 12y ago
      I would also want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. It gives me an opportunity to re-evaluate my words, and reply accordingly. The reply might be "oops, sorry", or it might be "no, it wasn't." Thats the argument here. If further debate or discussion were necessary following that exchange, I would welcome it, but "oops, sorry" cannot and should not be the default because it assumes that whomever takes the defensive first is always in the right, and that is its own "bubble" worth worrying about.
      - thumbtackthief 12y ago
        Again, the 'no debate' is more two-pronged: 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible, and 2) Keep the debate private, as opposed to long threads on the HS boards that just deteriorate into this. The one time I was accused of being subtly-sexist, I disagreed with the commenter and I told her so (privately). She stuck to her point, and by the end I didn't 100% agree with her and I thought she was being a little sensitive; _however_ I'll still be more careful in the future. Whether or not I agree that she should have been offended is irrelevant: I said something that offended her, she seems like a nice enough person, and making that tiny switch in my language was a small-enough sacrifice that I was happy to err on the side of caution.
ibejoeb 12y ago
Now we watch as the debate happens here by throwaway proxy. I'm certainly not going to attend HS, so do what you want, I suppose. I probably won't be hiring anyone who comes out of the program, either. I can't imagine interacting with a product of this environment. So conditioned to avoid not just confrontation but plain discourse. This is a social lobotomy.
- thumbtackthief 12y ago
  It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.
  - ibejoeb 12y ago
    I'm going after the debate embargo. I don't think it's good for business. I choose not to embrace it. I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity. I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading of the rules, that's a no-no. I'm glad we're not following those rules here, because now we can have this argument. At least until we declare a moratorium on argument.
    - thumbtackthief 12y ago
      "After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels." I don't see anything wrong with keeping such discussions private. Especially when you are dealing with a minority standing up for himself or herself, keeping it to one-on-one instead of having to face off against a squadron of privileged people who for the first time in history are being asked to acknowledge viewpoints other than their own seems like a decent idea to me.
      - wmj 12y ago
        If a false allegation has been made publicly, then it must be debunked publicly as well. Otherwise, it remains as such in people's minds. It's both illegal and immoral.

fred_durst 12y ago

I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. When a mistake is vague and hard to understand, there becomes a certain amount of probability involved in making a mistake. Therefore those who are the most active could end up with the most mistakes. In this case, those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". This policy may simply reward the quiet students and discourage active verbal and written communication and do little to discourage borderline behavior.

davorak 12y ago
> I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples. They do try to address this issue by making the "social rules are lightweight" and tell students "feel free to talk to faculty." > those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". If the social rules are light then it is more important the student is learning to reduce their use of subtle-ism more then it is that it happens every once in a while.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- wmj 12y ago
  > If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples. Or to reject the accusation. That's also fine. It's fine especially when the accusation is absolute and utter bullshit. If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court.
  - davorak 12y ago
    > If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court. This makes me think you are not talking about lightweight social rules at private institution.

bitJericho 12y ago

Oh you don't like my "well-actually?" How bout you go sod off XD

nicholasjbs 12y ago

Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. This is in no way a "shaming ritual." It isn't intended to be one, and it hasn't become one in practice. I'm one of the founders of Hacker School. I can't stand politics. If these rules actually created the environment you're imagining, we'd get rid of them immediately. Thankfully, we have several years of experience now and we've found that having lightweight social rules makes Hacker School a much better place for everyone, and it's by far the least political environment I've ever been in.

nawitus 12y ago
Accusation of sexism (etc.) is public and brings shame to the accused (whether or not the accused is guilty). It's also clearly a ritual. In conclusion, I think these social rules explained the blog article are indeed shaming rituals. You might not agree, which is not surprising since you're one of the founders.
- thumbtackthief 12y ago
  Just like anything else, tactful people will do this privately and with discretion.
  - wmj 12y ago
    That's not what the rules dictate.
  - Chris2048 12y ago
    Is this an "..all reasonable people" argument?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ahh 12y ago
> If these rules actually created the environment you're imagining Of course they don't, for the people you think are high status. Male losers like me get hosed, but who cares what kulaks think?

mcguire 12y ago

"Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. They're just another small-p political tool to be used by politically minded people to exert social control." This is absolutely true. The only thing that will improve someone's manners is their mother slapping them when they got out of hand while growing up. Once they're an adult, their concepts of social roles and the appropriate ways of interacting with others are fixed. The only path of improvement is for them to die off.

HarrietJones 12y ago
Thanks for the sarcasm. We're not talking about egregious examples of bad behaviour. These subtle-isms are vague; they're hard to identify and explain; they crop up unconsciously. It's not bad manners if you don't know you've upset someone, or you're unaware that you're enforcing damaging social norms. We should change & we should question our moral compasses. For me, this is an absolute. But the proposed solution only works in situations where all actors are acting in good faith. It's too easily subverted. I have no beef with Hacker School for trying this, but time and again, groups that work within these frameworks devolve into politicking and rules lawyering.

samstokes 12y ago

Having met some of the Hacker School faculty (though not the OP) and discussed their social rules, I don't believe this is a shaming ritual, in intent or practice. I think it's more like a code review. "You need to check for a null pointer there." "I think what you said was subtly racist." "Did you think about making this its own class? It might be easier to test that way." "That was a well-actually." The intent is to educate, not to punish; and I think the expected response is more "oh yeah, good point!" than "I'm sorry".

jamesbritt 12y ago
I think the expected response is more "oh yeah, good point!" than "I'm sorry". Both responses assume that the assessment was correct, and that's a problem. The subtly critical part of the exchange takes place in public. If there's agreement that may happen publicly, but if there's disagreement it happens privately. FTFA: After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels. If you are a third party, and you don't see what could be biased about the comment that was made, feel free to talk to faculty. It then become the responsibility of those around you to go find out what really went on when someone made an unfavorable claim about you. I realize the goal is to avoid prolonged "No it wasn't" "Yes it was" exchanges but this approach is asymmetrical in favoring accusation over rebuttal.

thumbtackthief 12y ago

I went to Hacker School, and I need to clarify: The 'no debate' really should read 'no public debate'. I have been on both sides of the subtle -ism 'violation', and when I was the one called out, I had a lengthy private discussion with the person who called me out on it. I believe that was fine: The goal of not having public debate is to remove the defensiveness as well as to keep innocent bystanders from being drawn in and making a big issue out of something small.

antics 12y ago

I was in the Summer 2013 batch. Since this is the top-voted comment, let me be emphatic. The assumptions the parent comment makes about the HS experience bear no resemblance to reality. A good example is the consistent theme in this thread that such a rule can't exist without a shaming ritual, or without loss of being considered an adult. The context we're missing here is that participants at HS are self-selecting. One person in our batch quit his job as director of investment technology at a massive international bank to attend HS; another was a high school student. In all cases, participation represents serious costs of opportunity, time, and capital, and almost always, the reason they do it is because: Fundamentally, participants already believe in the assumptions of the environment. There is room for this theoretical debate about whether x policy extends to good rules for all of society. But realistically, the HS rules are effective because people at HS agree with them. To have this discussion without this specific context is to miss the point entirely. That is why the rule can be lightweight, and can still be incredibly effective. And if you don't think that's true, then I suggest you poll a nontrivial subset of HS, because almost everyone agrees.

Zikes 12y ago
> To have this discussion without this specific context is to miss the point entirely. The first sentence of the article: > We've enjoyed seeing our social rules spread into other parts of the tech community. The debate here is around whether or not these rules would work in other environments.
- antics 12y ago
  Yeah, and you can't have that discussion without understanding why it works for HS. By ignoring this context, the parent comment, and your comment here, debate a position that was never posited at all. In some sense you are debating yourselves.
  - Zikes 12y ago
    I actually agree, but I think it's a debate worth having. Clearly, this system works for Hacker School. Kudos. This system is also being advertised for wider implementation, possibly into communities and companies that all of us are a part of, and any broad social reform deserves a good deal of scrutiny before implementation. A key part of these rules, in particular, is the potential for abuse and the sorts of implications they have on the culture that implements them.

gluejar 12y ago

When the concept of "subtleism" (note the spelling) was explained to me by one of the Hacker School founders, I thought it was brilliant. Precisely because it transformed a "shaming ritual" into an olive branch. The idea is that subtleist remarks are NOT *-ist, individually, but the aggregate of hundreds of subtleisms could be oppressive. So, nothing's wrong with saying "you guys", if only it didn't come in a flood of subtleisms. It's ok, you're forgiven, but we can do better. Compare the word "micro-aggression". That's an accusation and the beginning of on argument. "Subtleism", by contrast, is a word to promote healing.