Hacker News Reader

Comment by BobbyJo | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes you pull a short straw and end up with shitty coworkers. I've worked with groups of people that were uniformly high functioning and understanding, and other groups that dwelled on political positioning and avoided work at all costs. Happens in every industry, some more than others.

View on HN

The New York Times is a highly influential newspapers, and who draws the short straw at that workplace and why is capital-p Politics.

Do you keep in your mind that their joutnalists have a figurative gun to their head when you are reading their articles? No? Maybe you should.

Big, multinational, influential companies are just as likely to have shitty cultures or teams as any other company in my experience.

As far as the gun to the head, every major news organization as of now survives on viewership, not quality. I always keep in mind that the point of EVERY published news article is not to disseminate information, it is to collect eyeballs.

I think if you are white, you can engage with this entirely as an intellectual debate, or think of it as not a big deal.

It's easier then to forget that it's a word still used regularly by people committing violent hate crimes against Black folks, and those cheering them on.

I think as a society we should always strive to be objective, especially when accusing someone of wrong-doing and, subsequently damaging their lively-hood. Yes, Black Americans have life experiences that tie extreme emotion to this word, but I think we can recognize that without losing sight of objectivity.

There is a reason we don't allow police officers with personal involvement to investigate crimes, and why it's generally frowned upon for employers to date their employees. It's the same reason why we shouldn't let the most subjectively affected decide intent in this instance.

intent may be a mitigating factor for some, but the harm should be judged by those harmed, should it not? If they can't speak to the harm, who can?

As a society, we have decided intent matters, and as a result, enshrined it in law. We consider intent in situations where people are killed, I think we can do the same when some feelings are hurt.

I think that's basically what I said? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

My cousin (immigrant from Pakistan) was trying to set up a housing arrangement with tiny houses for homeless people in New Orleans East. At one of the planning meetings in the local library, a (Black) resident stood up and said "What it feels like is you're trying to dump them all on the n****s in New Orleans East". I was appalled that my cousin would be framed that way, and quite frankly I'm more appalled that I'm not allowed to criticize this framing because repeating the language that was used even to criticize it starts this whole other fire.

(At a later meeting that was set up by the local councilman to use him as a punching bag he was told to "take his tiny houses back to Pakistan" with him and that "Donald Trump was President now" by a bunch of people I really doubt voted for Trump if they did vote). I've never been so happy to see someone lose an election in my life.

You just criticized the framing without repeating the language.

Yes, but in written form as opposed to verbally it doesn't have the negative pressure I felt was being applied upon my cousin.

"The N word" is the verbal equivalent of asterisks.

In my experience black people are way more rational about this stuff than white people.

Pew research has also confirmed this, it is mostly very wealthy progressives who are the most offended.

I suspect that it is used 1000x more often by black “folks” committing crimes against other black “folks”. Also, black is not a proper noun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com