3 ms·

While JeorgR's point isn't well articulated, it's sad that almost any suggestion of racial discrimination appears to be reflexively downvoted and shouted down.

While JeorgR's point isn't well articulated, it's sad that almost any suggestion of racial discrimination appears to be reflexively downvoted and shouted down. So far we're unable to discuss the issue intelligently, which is what our society most needs. Racial discrimination is widespread, and often unconsciously. For example, one of the first things you learn about hiring is that people instinctively hire employees like themselves. That's why comments like JeorgR's are valuable, to bring it to our attention. If ~33% of the U.S. population (I'm guessing at the proportion of white males) dominate so much of our reading, our government, business, entertainment, technology, etc. -- just looking at the data, it raises serious (and what should be intellectually interesting) questions about how that happens, and about justice and fairness for the 66% whose opportunities are apparently much reduced. EDIT: added a bit to the last sentence

frogpelt 12y ago
Do you really think Bill Gates selectively reads book only by white males? Do you really think Bill Gates would hesitate to put a book on his list of best books if it was written by someone other than a white male? It's a ridiculous claim when there's absolutely no proof to back it up. Also, how does it help the problem of what you call "widespread", "unconscious" racial discrimination to artificially include books by non-white, non-male authors just to meet a race/gender criteria? Does that really help the problem?
- hackuser 12y ago
  I'll only respond by noting for other readers that frogpelt made those claims, not me.
  - rl3 12y ago
    You praised JoergR's comment on the basis that it is valuable, because comments like his serve to bring racial discrimination to our attention. I think it's fair to say that what frogpelt said was more or less in line with what most perceived your implication to be.
    - hackuser 12y ago
      > I think it's fair to say that what frogpelt said was more or less in line with what most perceived your implication to be. I think this gets to the core of the problem of discussing race: Read the comments carefully; nobody blames Gates or even mentions him. I certainly don't; the cause could be a lack of books written by others, or a lack of opportunities to write, to obtain qualifications, to get an education, to get jobs in those industries, etc. etc. (I actually had written a sentence saying Gates wasn't the issue but deleted it as unnecessary.) However, in the more angry responses, people jump to the assumption that Gates is being accused; those comments are the only place blame of Gates is mentioned. I point out that they are the angry comments because it seems that those people are defensive, jumping to conclusions and acting out. (Yes, some people get overheated in the other direction, but I don't see that here.) That a big reason that it's hard to discuss these issues intelligently and move forward. People are defensive, and to be honest, today on places like HN it is far more trendy and 'politically correct' to shout down the mention of discrimination. You can see people angrily repeating the talking points (reverse discrimination, etc.); that kind of behavior (anger, repetition) is not a sign of intelligent analysis and won't likely help us solve these problems.
      - rl3 12y ago
        You're casting this as if it's some sort of reactionary, groupthink conspiracy intent on shutting down any discussion relating to discrimination. No, I think people here are being angry and defensive at the notion of a reading list numbering five books that is, at best, somehow being used as an example of issues endemic to society as a whole. It is absurd and only serves to detract from the original topic.
        hackuser 12y ago
        Sorry you are so upset by it.
- sp332 12y ago
  Do you really think Bill Gates selectively reads book only by white males? How could you tell if he didn't? The result is indistinguishable. And GP never recommended artificial inclusion of anything.
axlprose 12y ago
A lot of calls for discrimination are also jumping the gun in assuming that what they're witnessing aren't just expected statistical outcomes. I have yet to see someone making claims of bigotry in cases like these actually compare their cause with a sound mathematical model of the situation to see if there are any significant differences in outcome. Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? There's so many plausible explanations for the patterns we see, that any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? Agreed; I think this is part of a good discussion. Are few books being written by minorities and women? If so, are few of minorities/women getting the opportunities (e.g., book deals)? Do few have the qualifications to write on such topics? Your idea certainly seems plausible, and then I wonder: Why do the bad schools seem overwhelming concentrated in minority and poor communities? For example, I suspect some is the result of generations of historical discrimination: * Red-lining kept even economically successful minorities (which were were few due to overwhelming discrimination in employment and finance) from owning homes (nobody would give them a loan) and in depressed neighborhoods. I doubt it's coincidence that, despite the explosion of the black middle class, many remain in those neighborhoods. * Women were denied opportunities in many of these fields. I'd have a very hard time believing some isn't due to ongoing discrimination. ----- However, the rest of the post seems a return to the same damaging shout-downs of anyone raising these issues: If you re-read the comments, nobody calls Gates a bigot or blames him at all; I suspect many like me would share your hypothesis. Sorry to pick on your message, but your post is a good example of the reflexive response I was talking about that prevents us from moving forward. You seem to agree: > any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring. Think of it this way: Aren't you enforcing a new political correctness? That is, it's now 'politically incorrect' on HN to point out racism. (Historically, that's been the most common political incorrectness.) EDIT: typo on last word
GHFigs 12y ago
While JeorgR's point isn't well articulated There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant. If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult. If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.
- hackuser 12y ago
  OT: It's so unfortunate to read comments like this. Where on the Internet is there a forum where people adhere to some standard of behavior? I would be much happier if HN would kill any comments that are not civil, no matter what else is in them. This kind of comment significantly reduces the value of HN; imagine the quality if they were all removed.
  - GHFigs 12y ago
    I find it difficult to believe that you're truly concerned with 'the value of HN'.
- JoergR 12y ago
  Yes, I'm tired of being yelled at by the 'deafly intolerant' (nice ableism there), so I suggest you stop doing it.

frogpelt 12y ago

Do you really think Bill Gates selectively reads book only by white males? Do you really think Bill Gates would hesitate to put a book on his list of best books if it was written by someone other than a white male? It's a ridiculous claim when there's absolutely no proof to back it up. Also, how does it help the problem of what you call "widespread", "unconscious" racial discrimination to artificially include books by non-white, non-male authors just to meet a race/gender criteria? Does that really help the problem?

hackuser 12y ago
I'll only respond by noting for other readers that frogpelt made those claims, not me.
- rl3 12y ago
  You praised JoergR's comment on the basis that it is valuable, because comments like his serve to bring racial discrimination to our attention. I think it's fair to say that what frogpelt said was more or less in line with what most perceived your implication to be.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > I think it's fair to say that what frogpelt said was more or less in line with what most perceived your implication to be. I think this gets to the core of the problem of discussing race: Read the comments carefully; nobody blames Gates or even mentions him. I certainly don't; the cause could be a lack of books written by others, or a lack of opportunities to write, to obtain qualifications, to get an education, to get jobs in those industries, etc. etc. (I actually had written a sentence saying Gates wasn't the issue but deleted it as unnecessary.) However, in the more angry responses, people jump to the assumption that Gates is being accused; those comments are the only place blame of Gates is mentioned. I point out that they are the angry comments because it seems that those people are defensive, jumping to conclusions and acting out. (Yes, some people get overheated in the other direction, but I don't see that here.) That a big reason that it's hard to discuss these issues intelligently and move forward. People are defensive, and to be honest, today on places like HN it is far more trendy and 'politically correct' to shout down the mention of discrimination. You can see people angrily repeating the talking points (reverse discrimination, etc.); that kind of behavior (anger, repetition) is not a sign of intelligent analysis and won't likely help us solve these problems.
    - rl3 12y ago
      You're casting this as if it's some sort of reactionary, groupthink conspiracy intent on shutting down any discussion relating to discrimination. No, I think people here are being angry and defensive at the notion of a reading list numbering five books that is, at best, somehow being used as an example of issues endemic to society as a whole. It is absurd and only serves to detract from the original topic.
      - hackuser 12y ago
        Sorry you are so upset by it.
sp332 12y ago
Do you really think Bill Gates selectively reads book only by white males? How could you tell if he didn't? The result is indistinguishable. And GP never recommended artificial inclusion of anything.

axlprose 12y ago

A lot of calls for discrimination are also jumping the gun in assuming that what they're witnessing aren't just expected statistical outcomes. I have yet to see someone making claims of bigotry in cases like these actually compare their cause with a sound mathematical model of the situation to see if there are any significant differences in outcome. Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? There's so many plausible explanations for the patterns we see, that any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring.

hackuser 12y ago
> Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? Agreed; I think this is part of a good discussion. Are few books being written by minorities and women? If so, are few of minorities/women getting the opportunities (e.g., book deals)? Do few have the qualifications to write on such topics? Your idea certainly seems plausible, and then I wonder: Why do the bad schools seem overwhelming concentrated in minority and poor communities? For example, I suspect some is the result of generations of historical discrimination: * Red-lining kept even economically successful minorities (which were were few due to overwhelming discrimination in employment and finance) from owning homes (nobody would give them a loan) and in depressed neighborhoods. I doubt it's coincidence that, despite the explosion of the black middle class, many remain in those neighborhoods. * Women were denied opportunities in many of these fields. I'd have a very hard time believing some isn't due to ongoing discrimination. ----- However, the rest of the post seems a return to the same damaging shout-downs of anyone raising these issues: If you re-read the comments, nobody calls Gates a bigot or blames him at all; I suspect many like me would share your hypothesis. Sorry to pick on your message, but your post is a good example of the reflexive response I was talking about that prevents us from moving forward. You seem to agree: > any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring. Think of it this way: Aren't you enforcing a new political correctness? That is, it's now 'politically incorrect' on HN to point out racism. (Historically, that's been the most common political incorrectness.) EDIT: typo on last word

GHFigs 12y ago

While JeorgR's point isn't well articulated There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant. If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult. If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.

hackuser 12y ago
OT: It's so unfortunate to read comments like this. Where on the Internet is there a forum where people adhere to some standard of behavior? I would be much happier if HN would kill any comments that are not civil, no matter what else is in them. This kind of comment significantly reduces the value of HN; imagine the quality if they were all removed.
- GHFigs 12y ago
  I find it difficult to believe that you're truly concerned with 'the value of HN'.
JoergR 12y ago
Yes, I'm tired of being yelled at by the 'deafly intolerant' (nice ableism there), so I suggest you stop doing it.