Hacker News Reader

> Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change.

For some, this is the goal. Unfortunately, they tend to be drowned out by those who find the experience of loudly attacking and embarrassing "privileged" folk to be cathartic and uplifting — a goal unto itself.

Evergreen College professor Bret Weinstein made a great point on a podcast earlier this week: "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction."

"You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction."

I think the difference is pretty readily discernible. I don't think they point in the same direction at all. The difference is between "Can you help me up off the pavement and help me dust myself off, given that you are standing above me and have strength I lack?" and "Hey, lay down on the pavement so I can shit all over you because someone who looks kind of like you shit all over me and it's my turn. That's only fair."

Right - clearly it is the job of women and PoC to give positive experiences to white men otherwise they cannot expect to be treated well.

It is also clearly not the responsibility of white men to give positive experiences to PoC and women, because they can't be expected to understand how if they aren't first given positive experiences by PoC and women.

Attacking someone for ignorance is very unproductive

So why do white men do it to women and PoC, or is your claim that ignorance only exists on one side of this?

You imply that while men can do nothing for themselves unless given positive experiences by women an PoC.

This is obviously false, since there are plenty of white men who have a good understanding of these issues.

Stop blaming women and PoC for your own ignorance and go and learn something from people who have figured this stuff out.

I can think of virtually no better example to prove my point than the contents of this exchange.

So thank you for helping me to demonstrate to everyone else in this thread that speaking from anger, constructing and attacking the flimsiest of straw men, and repeatedly misconstruing a sympathetic counterparty's points only serves to push away the people you might hope to see your point of view.

I genuinely hope it was satisfying for you, because that's about the only positive outcome that's likely to arise for you out of this.

Try reading what I am saying without projecting anger into it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't mean it's angry.

Also - there is nothing you have said that indicates you are a sympathetic counterparty. How do you expect us to know that? Therein lies the problem.

It's not a duty or responsibility. And it's not unproductive as a sibling commenter suggests. It's straight up counterproductive and a form of self-sabotage.

If your goal is to feel self-righteous and superior, by all means attack those who are showing genuine interest in coming over to your side. If your goal is to actually bring about a positive change in society, perhaps it's worthwhile to consider a different approach.

This is based on an almost ludicrously simplistic straw man: you conjure up the idea of someone who is "showing genuine interest in coming over you your side"

How are they 'showing' this exactly? What makes it 'genuine' that they want to come over to another side? Why are they on a 'side' in the first place, and what makes you think that the goal is to have them change 'sides'? Are you saying they are not already on 'our side'? What does that imply? How can you distinguish their arguments from those of people who simply want to argue their position and remain ignorant?

I'm not actually saying we should attack people for being ignorant, I'm saying that if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism.

Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. Allyship is complex and defined finally by those you are allied with.

> ...if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism.

Nobody is arguing this.

Here's the thing though: it doesn't matter if one problem is worse than the other, at least as to the point people are trying to make in this thread.

When activists are openly hostile or otherwise inflammatory to people who are sympathetic to but not yet behind the activists' cause, they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective. Those people who held out an olive branch only to have it knocked aside are less likely to become allies in the future.

> Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place.

I'm sorry, but this is phenomenally short-sighted. This is how the human psyche works. Virtually any person who's been converted to your cause started from a position of disagreement, went through a transition period where they started to question longstanding beliefs and assumptions, learned to empathize with people who were harmed by the status quo, and eventually discarded or significantly amended those original beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a psychologist who will suggest that ridiculing or attacking a person in that transition period will do anything but turn them away and calcify their original position.

> they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective

You have repeatedly made this assertion, but you have made no effort to substantiate it. Why do you think you're in a better position to judge what works and what doesn't than the activists who deal with this stuff every day? Being hostile towards people who are ignorant and react indignantly when their ignorance is pointed out is a strategy, and one that seems to work. Sure, some people don't take criticism well and you lose them. But some people _will_ listen, improve their behavior, and will eventually become worthwhile allies.

You have repeatedly made this assertion, but you have made no effort to substantiate it.

(I am not the person you are replying to, but) I have actually offered myself as an example in this discussion, which has been repeatedly pissed on. I am the top ranked woman on HN, in spite of never having had a tech job. When I still had relatively little karma, I was noticing that men on the leaderboard were closing ranks and things were getting what felt kind of ugly on my end. I was getting remarks that suggested to me that I was "prominent" for a woman here. I gathered data to verify that and soon concluded that I was rather high ranking for a woman, in spite of my low score.

I have worked really hard to move certain people out of my way without turning it into a fight and to participate in good faith and so on. I am noticing in recent months that other women are benefitting from the changes here, which weren't simply wrought by me, it is far more complicated than that.

Of course, I have known lots of people in life who will simply dismiss whatever I have accomplished with some convenient explanation like "survivor bias" or "that's just your opinion" or even "It is wild coincidence, stranger things have happened." People seem to basically believe what they already believe. Confirmation bias seems to make most people interpret all events through the lens of their current mental models and getting people to consider others is quite hard.

I did not originally set out to become anyone of influence on Hacker News, but after discovering that I had fairly high rank for a woman in spite of zero ambition, I decided to run with it. And I went from something silly like 4k karma to currently above 19k karma in probably a shorter time than it took me to get that original 4k. Furthermore, I no longer see men on the leaderboard routinely closing ranks to exclude me and things like that. The atmosphere has changed and without a battle.

I am expecting this comment of mine to also be torn apart and pissed on, which is par for the course for this type of comment. Nonetheless, I am leaving it "for the record" in hopes that it causes some people to think, even though it is highly unlikely to change your mind at all.

For what it's worth, I upvoted you.

Nonetheless, I think you're making a bit of a generalization here from messageboard karma to the real world.

The community here on HN is self selected for a particular kind of person, and the people that would be on my side in this discussion really tend to avoid this board for similar reasons.

I have no doubt that you'll get more karma for being cordial instead of abrasive, respectable instead of radical. But I care very little about how much karma I have.

Eh, karma is far easier to point to than the things I actually pay the most attention to. I also cannot fathom why people make this sort of distinction between cyberspace and meatspace. People get jobs and work and meet future spouses and on and on via online forums. There are an awful lot of real world movers and shakers right here on Hacker News.

Best. Have a good day.

>I also cannot fathom why people make this sort of distinction between cyberspace and meatspace.

I don't, in general, I just meant that randos online are not the target of my activism, and I'm not currently trying to conduct myself in such a way that they become allies. That's all.

>Those people who held out an olive branch only to have it knocked aside are less likely to become allies in the future.

You're still acting like people are doing us a favor by trying to understand us.

They aren't, and we deserve better than that: either deal with us substantively or dismiss us, but don't expect us to try and manipulate your biases in such a way that you end up agreeing with us. That's what you're asking when you say we should try to convince people.

>You will be hard-pressed to find a psychologist who will suggest that ridiculing or attacking a person in that transition period will do anything but turn them away and calcify their original position.

And yet, I've seen the opposite of this happen time and time again. When people are ready to learn, it looks a lot different than this. When people aren't ready, yeah, this is basically what happens. Not to mention that if you talk to a psychologist about rational argument they'll tell you it's a quirk of human cognition, not the rule, and that it's basically futile as a means of really convincing someone.

If they really support us they'll understand eventually and come around. If they don't, they won't. I say this because it happened to me, and here I am arguing with you about this. It takes a very mature person to want to understand these things, and not everybody is mature enough.

This whole concept that we have to be nice to bigots lest they become more bigoted is hugely abusive and unhelpful, and you've yet to justify it.