6 ms·

Just hi-hacking this comment to talk about the same line. Everybody needs to stop with this "white-male" nonsense, which is inherently racist. There is much cu

Just hi-hacking this comment to talk about the same line. Everybody needs to stop with this "white-male" nonsense, which is inherently racist. There is much cultural diversity among what is considered "white" and that is painfully obvious. The "black" American guy and "white" American gal might have more in common with each other than the "white" Italian working in the cubicle next door. This also applies to the vast spectrum of "Asians" whose cultures differ significantly. And just a personal opinion on something else Sam said "Realizing that it’s hard to speak with much authority here as a white guy" Completely unnecessary and I think it would be healthier if people stop this self persecution. (Using the same logic, maybe I can say this with authority because I am an indigenous Australian =D)

a-t-shirt 12y ago
At least one moderator here (with the username "dang") has blocked discussion of the fact that white men are actually underrepresented in tech. For example, take a look at this thread from about three months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7662013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7662013 He labeled the submission itself a "troll" (and locked it) because it generated what he called "high-indignation, low-information" responses. Read the responses and decide for yourself. It's pretty clear that "high-indignation, low-information" just means "doesn't support my ideology". > it would be healthier if people stop this self persecution If only it were self-persecution. It's actually persecuting other (infinitely less powerful) white men and boys by implying "You—as a member of the group who will be most negatively affected by the policies we are discussing—are not allowed to object."
- dang 12y ago
  > and locked it That's false. We didn't lock anything. We simply made the post not be on the front page. Edit: I posted a longer reply, but decided it was a bad idea.
  - xiaoma 12y ago
    I have to say that I've lost some respect for HN today. While there are many times I've missed the quality of the community from the early days of 2007, it's only been recently where I've wondered if the front page might be as censored as Digg was around the time I first discovered HN.
    - dang 12y ago
      Not sure what you're referring to? I can tell you, though, that HN has never been a purely vote-driven site, not in 2007 or any time since. It has always been a blend of user votes and moderator curation. What has changed is that (because users asked us to) we've been more transparent over the last few months about how the site works. It's a mistake to misinterpret this change in reporting as a change in HN itself.
      - xiaoma 12y ago
        I've been aware of the hiring ads on which no comments were allowed, of course. Have moderators been doing things like un-flagging and keeping specific stories they disagree with off the page for so long? It is entirely possible I was mistaken, but I was under the belief that HN was mostly hands-off when it started. I.e., things other than clear attempts to spam, etc were off the page. Also, I think the focus of the site was narrower and clearer. It was dominated by technology and business with political pieces specifically discouraged. Now, political posts are pretty common. This broadening and blurring of the borders of what's "hacker news" can leave more room for mods to simply boost those they agree with and silence those they disagree with. The particular article above is disturbing to see suppressed since it's clearly factual, isn't spam or similar and it's about the bay area tech scene, but apparently it's politically inconvenient.
        SamReidHughes 12y ago
        > but apparently it's politically inconvenient. This is merely a theory to explain your observations. I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.
king_jester 12y ago
> Everybody needs to stop with this "white-male" nonsense, which is inherently racist. There is much cultural diversity among what is considered "white" and that is painfully obvious. The "black" American guy and "white" American gal might have more in common with each other than the "white" Italian working in the cubicle next door. This also applies to the vast spectrum of "Asians" whose cultures differ significantly. Talking about white people or even generalizing about white people is not racist. There is no institutional and systemic power backing discrimination against white people based on their skin color. On the basis of being white, you do not suffer increased chances of incarceration, lack of access to education, worse job opportunities, and so on. White identity is not the same as Asian identity and the issues facing Asian people do relate to racism. It is a false equivalence to compare whiteness to being Asian. > Completely unnecessary and I think it would be healthier if people stop this self persecution. (Using the same logic, maybe I can say this with authority because I am an indigenous Australian =D) There is nothing wrong with a little self awareness of being a member of the dominant social group in tech.
- tomasien 12y ago
  It's extremely sad that this very well reasoned response stating widely accepted theories about racism has been down-voted. Now they're not widely as in UNIVERSALLY accepted, but the race-studies community at the very least would agree with the concepts behind this post, and that at the very least merits its inclusion in the discussion.
- thomasfromcdnjs 12y ago
  I was just adding a point that is left out of these discussions more often than not. The point is that "white" people aren't unified because of their skin pigment. Europe is a major example and of course the never ending protestant and catholic wars around the globe. > Talking about white people or even generalizing about white people is not racist. There is no institutional and systemic power backing discrimination against white people based on their skin color. Unfortunately generalizing about white people is racist. And saying that it isn't, is a "systemic power backing discrimination" based on their skin color. > On the basis of being white, you do not suffer increased chances of incarceration, lack of access to education, worse job opportunities, and so on. This supports my original post, I think we should move away from skin pigment based judgements. Also I don't have any references at hand but I recall these statistics being heavily influenced by your socio-economic status. You could replace "white" with "middle to upper class". > White identity is not the same as Asian identity and the issues facing Asian people do relate to racism. It is a false equivalence to compare whiteness to being Asian I'm not sure what you meant by this point. But what I meant is that Italian's, Greek's, Irish, American' and Australian's don't fit neatly under the "white" banner and nor do Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian's and Korean's fit neatly under the "asian" banner. > There is nothing wrong with a little self awareness of being a member of the dominant social group in tech. "white" is not the master social group of tech nor do people walk around consciously identifying with the "white" group. The Tabs vs Spaces debate does not give a shit if your black or white, extend this to TDD debates, functional vs OOP etc. Yes, I know racism exist.

a-t-shirt 12y ago

At least one moderator here (with the username "dang") has blocked discussion of the fact that white men are actually underrepresented in tech. For example, take a look at this thread from about three months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7662013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7662013 He labeled the submission itself a "troll" (and locked it) because it generated what he called "high-indignation, low-information" responses. Read the responses and decide for yourself. It's pretty clear that "high-indignation, low-information" just means "doesn't support my ideology". > it would be healthier if people stop this self persecution If only it were self-persecution. It's actually persecuting other (infinitely less powerful) white men and boys by implying "You—as a member of the group who will be most negatively affected by the policies we are discussing—are not allowed to object."

dang 12y ago
> and locked it That's false. We didn't lock anything. We simply made the post not be on the front page. Edit: I posted a longer reply, but decided it was a bad idea.
- xiaoma 12y ago
  I have to say that I've lost some respect for HN today. While there are many times I've missed the quality of the community from the early days of 2007, it's only been recently where I've wondered if the front page might be as censored as Digg was around the time I first discovered HN.
  - dang 12y ago
    Not sure what you're referring to? I can tell you, though, that HN has never been a purely vote-driven site, not in 2007 or any time since. It has always been a blend of user votes and moderator curation. What has changed is that (because users asked us to) we've been more transparent over the last few months about how the site works. It's a mistake to misinterpret this change in reporting as a change in HN itself.
    - xiaoma 12y ago
      I've been aware of the hiring ads on which no comments were allowed, of course. Have moderators been doing things like un-flagging and keeping specific stories they disagree with off the page for so long? It is entirely possible I was mistaken, but I was under the belief that HN was mostly hands-off when it started. I.e., things other than clear attempts to spam, etc were off the page. Also, I think the focus of the site was narrower and clearer. It was dominated by technology and business with political pieces specifically discouraged. Now, political posts are pretty common. This broadening and blurring of the borders of what's "hacker news" can leave more room for mods to simply boost those they agree with and silence those they disagree with. The particular article above is disturbing to see suppressed since it's clearly factual, isn't spam or similar and it's about the bay area tech scene, but apparently it's politically inconvenient.
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        > but apparently it's politically inconvenient. This is merely a theory to explain your observations. I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

king_jester 12y ago

> Everybody needs to stop with this "white-male" nonsense, which is inherently racist. There is much cultural diversity among what is considered "white" and that is painfully obvious. The "black" American guy and "white" American gal might have more in common with each other than the "white" Italian working in the cubicle next door. This also applies to the vast spectrum of "Asians" whose cultures differ significantly. Talking about white people or even generalizing about white people is not racist. There is no institutional and systemic power backing discrimination against white people based on their skin color. On the basis of being white, you do not suffer increased chances of incarceration, lack of access to education, worse job opportunities, and so on. White identity is not the same as Asian identity and the issues facing Asian people do relate to racism. It is a false equivalence to compare whiteness to being Asian. > Completely unnecessary and I think it would be healthier if people stop this self persecution. (Using the same logic, maybe I can say this with authority because I am an indigenous Australian =D) There is nothing wrong with a little self awareness of being a member of the dominant social group in tech.

tomasien 12y ago
It's extremely sad that this very well reasoned response stating widely accepted theories about racism has been down-voted. Now they're not widely as in UNIVERSALLY accepted, but the race-studies community at the very least would agree with the concepts behind this post, and that at the very least merits its inclusion in the discussion.
thomasfromcdnjs 12y ago
I was just adding a point that is left out of these discussions more often than not. The point is that "white" people aren't unified because of their skin pigment. Europe is a major example and of course the never ending protestant and catholic wars around the globe. > Talking about white people or even generalizing about white people is not racist. There is no institutional and systemic power backing discrimination against white people based on their skin color. Unfortunately generalizing about white people is racist. And saying that it isn't, is a "systemic power backing discrimination" based on their skin color. > On the basis of being white, you do not suffer increased chances of incarceration, lack of access to education, worse job opportunities, and so on. This supports my original post, I think we should move away from skin pigment based judgements. Also I don't have any references at hand but I recall these statistics being heavily influenced by your socio-economic status. You could replace "white" with "middle to upper class". > White identity is not the same as Asian identity and the issues facing Asian people do relate to racism. It is a false equivalence to compare whiteness to being Asian I'm not sure what you meant by this point. But what I meant is that Italian's, Greek's, Irish, American' and Australian's don't fit neatly under the "white" banner and nor do Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian's and Korean's fit neatly under the "asian" banner. > There is nothing wrong with a little self awareness of being a member of the dominant social group in tech. "white" is not the master social group of tech nor do people walk around consciously identifying with the "white" group. The Tabs vs Spaces debate does not give a shit if your black or white, extend this to TDD debates, functional vs OOP etc. Yes, I know racism exist.