Hacker News Reader

Comment by fred_durst | Hacker News Reader

I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear.

When a mistake is vague and hard to understand, there becomes a certain amount of probability involved in making a mistake. Therefore those who are the most active could end up with the most mistakes. In this case, those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms".

This policy may simply reward the quiet students and discourage active verbal and written communication and do little to discourage borderline behavior.

View on HN

Or in the case of "you guys", the mistake is perfectly clear, but it's 1) in no way intended to be sexist and 2) deeply ingrained in the culture I grew up in. I can understand why someone might object, but the fact is it is the standard gender-neutral second person plural pronoun around here. If my wife was going into town with her best friend, I would not hesitate to ask her "How long will you guys be gone?" nor would she give me an odd look if I did.

I can easily imagine people making a fuss about this leading to a state of near constant self-monitoring, and I'd probably get excited and slip up on a regular basis...

Sexism is deeply-ingrained in lots of cultures. That's sorta the point here.

> I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear.

If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples.

They do try to address this issue by making the "social rules are lightweight" and tell students "feel free to talk to faculty."

> those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms".

If the social rules are light then it is more important the student is learning to reduce their use of subtle-ism more then it is that it happens every once in a while.

> If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples.

Or to reject the accusation. That's also fine. It's fine especially when the accusation is absolute and utter bullshit.

If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court.

> If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court.

This makes me think you are not talking about lightweight social rules at private institution.

There's nothing the least bit lightweight about shaming and defaming someone of illegal behavior, while denying them the right to defend themselves.

I would bet $100 to $10 that the article is not trying to describe any form of illegal behavior with the term subtle-ism.

It most certainly is.

Shaming and defaming someone of a crime that they didn't commit, and mobbing them out of their right to defend themselves publicly (the school's policy amounts to collusion with the shamer/defamer) is most certainly illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com