Hacker News Reader

Comment by figglesonrails | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com