zlacker

Hacker news does not have the responsibility to improve or stop discrimination that happens outside the website. There is barely any discrimination that occurs on this website. Again, the majority of people cannot tell the race or gender of others unless it is explicitly stated.

And those issues are not just a one sided affair. It is politics after all. HN is impartial in that it silences both sides of that story (the other side being affirmative action or racial discrimination in favor of those who are supposedly oppressed).

>>FT_int+(OP)
With an assumption of good faith, let me try another way to express this to you: silence is, functionally even if not intentionally, support of the status quo. As such, the experiences of white men are implicitly apolitical under this policy and will be allowed. The experiences of women and minorities are implicitly political under this policy and will be flagged as such.

Is the incipient problem, for those not so fortunate as to be born white and male, perhaps a little clearer now? (And, to be clear, I am a white male. I'm just not blind to the concerns of others.)

>>eroppl+V
Most of Hacker News contains shared experiences where identity level experiences are irrelevant. That appears to be the point of Hacker News becoming apolitical to me, to avoid bringing in experiences that can differ between people and cause arguments.

I'm not a white male and I never think to bring up issues affecting my group to the discussion. It doesn't brother me that those issues are barely brought up.

>>FT_int+Q1
> Most of Hacker News contains shared experiences where identity level experiences are irrelevant.

I would suggest that maybe this isn't true for people who aren't you. And who aren't me. Many things, like getting a job as a software developer or talking to my boss--things I think you and I can probably agree are likely shared experiences?--feel very apolitical for me. And it is understandable that they feel that way: because I am the beneficiary of the biases extant in society. I get the breaks. It's "normal" for me to look around and see nobody having it easier than I do and when I fuck up (god, do I fuck up!), I am not othered so that my actions reflect on my race or gender, but on me specifically.

Such an "apolitical" world, such an "unbiased" world, may not exist for, say, women or African-Americans or trans folks. And sweeping that realization under the rug is, by itself, a political act in favor of the continuation of the incentives and the policies that create that situation that lets me be comfortable and "apolitical" and ensures that other folks cannot be either.

Nothing is apolitical: it just may work to your benefit. And it usually works to mine--I am fortunate to have the grace to understand just how lucky a dice roll I got, and that's why I can't be on-board with policies that want to prevent discussion of whether the dice are loaded or not.

>>FT_int+Q1
The point I was trying to make is that there's people who exist outside those shared experiences, and yet have valuable contributions to make to discussion on HN, but they probably aren't gonna because banning politics will create an atmosphere where they don't feel safe or welcome.

>>eroppl+Y2
> Many things, like getting a job as a software developer or talking to my boss ....

Note the "most". Pointing out one counter example where discussion barely shows up isn't a counterpoint. I would also argue that those experiences are shared but that is its own political discussion.

> Such an "apolitical" world, such an "unbiased" world, may not exist for, say, women or African-Americans or trans folks. And sweeping that realization under the rug is, by itself, a political act in favor of the continuation of the incentives and the policies that create that situation that lets me be comfortable and "apolitical" and ensures that other folks cannot be either.

I don't think it is reasonable to feel uncomfortable about not being able to discuss two sided issues on one board out of millions on the internet.

Political discussion is inherently caustic and damaging to discussion boards. Only small, heavily moderated boards can produce productive discussions. It is in the nature of simple user registration and no posting restrictions.

>>FT_int+q9
> Note the "most". Pointing out one counter example where discussion barely shows up isn't a counterpoint. I would also argue that those experiences are shared but that is its own political discussion.

Virtually any interaction between two people could be put into this bucket. If you want to just talk about adjust-your-pince-nez tech stuff, Lambda the Ultimate exists. Pretty much everything with more of a human element than that is intractably political--you just may not have a dog in the fight.

Hiring is political. Firing is political. Performance reviews are political. Getting funded is political. SOPA is political. Hate speech is political. Wikipedia NPOV is political. The surveillance state is political. Facebook's content filtering to show you what you want to see is...political.

This isn't stuff that "barely shows up". It's the core of the culture. Computers, ultimately, barely matter to tech--people do. And people are intractably political.

> I don't think it is reasonable to feel uncomfortable about not being able to discuss two sided issues on one board out of millions on the internet.

I'm being careful not to frame your arguments poorly; I would appreciate the same charity. I feel uncomfortable with tacit support for a white, male status quo on one of the more read, more important culture sites that are in the tech community of which I am a part.

>>FT_int+(OP)
The fact that you think that this set of statements is framed in a neutral or apolitical way is proving the point, you know?

>>adrien+zi
You caught that, didn't you? I've been careful to offer my responses in good faith, but I couldn't help but notice that, yes, his defense is coming from a pretty regressive starting point.

The words people pick tell you a lot about them, don't they? ;) Almost like they mean things...