4 ms·

So, this is all well and good, and am sure the outrage plays well with certain circles. But, let's look at things from a business perspective--because, ultimate

So, this is all well and good, and am sure the outrage plays well with certain circles. But, let's look at things from a business perspective--because, ultimately, that's what YC is: a business. Let's assume that HN is a terrible place where sexism and racism are easily found--consider that the ability to review people's posting histories is a really good datapoint of figuring out whether or not they're somebody you want to work with. If an applicant applies with a posting history rife with sexism and racism, then maybe they're not going to be asked back. It's a chance to let people show their true colors, and many people are bigoted shitbags. So, even looking past that, the author raises the point that YC has a portfolio north of 30B USD. So, erm, maybe whatever they're doing is working? Maybe, just maybe, sexism and racism and everything else is not really that relevant to running a successful business. I don't want to go full libertariloon on this and go claim that the free market thus proves those are non-issues, but from a business standpoint they don't seem to be mattering. A criticism of "but but but imagine how much better things could be if they stomped it out!" is a non-starter, because it's playing in what-ifs. If HN does have a problem, it's that the downvote system is bullshit and broken and enables people to hivemind more easily. PG screwed up, in my opinion, when he gave a blessing on giving downvotes based on disagreement instead of civility or relevance. The moderation system is opaque and broken, though much less broken thanks to people like dang. Mostly, I think, the single systemic issue of HN is that people are not self-selecting for good technical content, and are so closed-minded that useful discussion of non-technical content becomes boring, tedious, and prone to flaming. EDIT: Thank you whoever gave that downvote without explanation for helping to demonstrate my point!

sequoia 12y ago
'OK so maybe there's sexism & racism but they're making money so what's the problem?' I think the author (and I agree with him here) sees the racism & sexism itself as being a problem. Nowhere does he argue that the problem is that racism/sexism are bad for profits. Personally I don't need the market to tell me if racism & sexism are bad and I doubt that you do either.
- angersock 12y ago
  Sexism and racism are views on life, much like religion and capitalism--I don't have to agree with them without respecting them as views held by other people. Silly, stupid views that I disagree with and find counter-productive, but it is their right to think in that wrongheaded fashion and talk about it. I agree that making policy decisions based on racism and sexism, especially when the affected population has no alternative but to be subject to those decisions (say, no other place to look for work, no other police force to seek protection from, etc.), is wrong. That said, I find it just as wrong to brand other people as bad or evil because they've got some silly view. To put it quite crudely: The primary job of YC is not the policing of ideas and thoughts of people posting on HN beyond keeping things relatively civil.
  - comrh 12y ago
    How can you have things "relatively civil" if people engage in sexism and racism?
    - solipsism 12y ago
      Exactly. Parent wants HN kept relatively civil from his/her perspective. When it comes to other people's perspectives, no holds barred.
    - angersock 12y ago
      There are ways of discussing and holding viewpoints that--in the strictest sense of the term--are racist or sexist. Talking about how best to accomodate maternity leave and schedule work is inherently sexist: it is an issue that does not apply to both men and women. Talking about how to handle racial profiling in targeted advertising is inherently racist: it is an issue that is tuned to your views about what messaging works best for a particular race. One can have these viewpoints and maintain civil discourse. One can even have viewpoints that are less pragmatic; e.g., violent crimes clearly committed more frequently by one race over others. In such a case, somebody can civilly point out numbers and studies that refute that viewpoint, and at the point one can either accede or agree to disagree. Being civil doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with people, or even being right.

sequoia 12y ago

'OK so maybe there's sexism & racism but they're making money so what's the problem?' I think the author (and I agree with him here) sees the racism & sexism itself as being a problem. Nowhere does he argue that the problem is that racism/sexism are bad for profits. Personally I don't need the market to tell me if racism & sexism are bad and I doubt that you do either.

angersock 12y ago
Sexism and racism are views on life, much like religion and capitalism--I don't have to agree with them without respecting them as views held by other people. Silly, stupid views that I disagree with and find counter-productive, but it is their right to think in that wrongheaded fashion and talk about it. I agree that making policy decisions based on racism and sexism, especially when the affected population has no alternative but to be subject to those decisions (say, no other place to look for work, no other police force to seek protection from, etc.), is wrong. That said, I find it just as wrong to brand other people as bad or evil because they've got some silly view. To put it quite crudely: The primary job of YC is not the policing of ideas and thoughts of people posting on HN beyond keeping things relatively civil.
- comrh 12y ago
  How can you have things "relatively civil" if people engage in sexism and racism?
  - solipsism 12y ago
    Exactly. Parent wants HN kept relatively civil from his/her perspective. When it comes to other people's perspectives, no holds barred.
  - angersock 12y ago
    There are ways of discussing and holding viewpoints that--in the strictest sense of the term--are racist or sexist. Talking about how best to accomodate maternity leave and schedule work is inherently sexist: it is an issue that does not apply to both men and women. Talking about how to handle racial profiling in targeted advertising is inherently racist: it is an issue that is tuned to your views about what messaging works best for a particular race. One can have these viewpoints and maintain civil discourse. One can even have viewpoints that are less pragmatic; e.g., violent crimes clearly committed more frequently by one race over others. In such a case, somebody can civilly point out numbers and studies that refute that viewpoint, and at the point one can either accede or agree to disagree. Being civil doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with people, or even being right.