Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

How can you have things "relatively civil" if people engage in sexism and racism?

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.

Do you happen to be a white and/or male? The only reason I ask (rhetorically, obviously -- please don't answer) is that, if you are, you might fail to realize that your position is one of privilege in our society. One of those many privileges shared by you and me is that what society considers common, civil discourse is very rarely offensive to our personhoods. Others don't share that privilege. For others, what you would call civil discourse is full of barbarism, small mindedness, and offense.

I'm not trying to challenge you, just curious: what is an example of discourse that would be interpreted by someone with said privilege to be civil, yet interpreted by someone else without it to be barbaric, small-minded, offensive, etc.

I get that you could have an objective discussion on religion that might be offensive, but does the fact that someone can find it offensive make it "offensive" in general, or does it make the person who isn't offended "privileged"? I'm just not sure exactly how to apply your statement to such scenarios -- could you explain a little more about what you mean?

Would (could?), for example, objective data (e.g. CSV file, scientific study, statistics) have these qualities or just people's opinions on the objective data?

You need me to provide examples of sexism or racism in "civil" discourse? Maybe we don't live in the same society. Read the post that these comments are about. Only a minority of them are trolls. Many are otherwise reasonable and intelligent people saying ignorant and shitty things in calm, civil, flag-avoiding ways.

If you don't notice it it's because you're privileged. If you're not, it's like you're swimming in it.

Err, no. I was hoping you could clarify what is meant, like I said. I get the idea of "casual [xxxx]ism", where something is so internalized and normalized that it doesn't even register as shitty.

However, I was specifically asking if you thought it was possible to have discussions on sensitive topics in a civil way or if having a discussion, e.g., "the pros and cons of slavery in America" or "was the prophet of Islam a fraud?" itself is some kind of expression of privilege over the person who would be offended by said discussion.

I'm not too worried about censorship in general, but sometimes the whole "don't be offensive" seems like an open problem and at odds with "have and discuss an opinion that disagrees with others". Just wanted your thoughts on that...

I never asserted that one should always be civil. I welcome honesty and open conversation. My point was that a conversation - a whole set of comments on a story, for example - can be civil and still overwhelmingly racist or sexist or what have you. I took the original poster's comment to be saying, "Well, as long as we keep it civil.". I'm saying " Come on, we can do better than that if we want, and we should." I'm also saying "YC doesn't get a pass for keeping it civil but overlooking a general culture of objectification or ignorance."

I could do without the civility, to be honest. I'd rather be compassionate and thoughtful and inclusive but irreverent and disrespectful.

This polite yet sexist and racist comment is exactly the sort of civil discourse I'd like to see more of.

Ah yes, ye old "reverse Xism". Going for the oldies but goodies.

Exactly. Parent wants HN kept relatively civil from his/her perspective. When it comes to other people's perspectives, no holds barred.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com