zlacker

I found it interesting that on HN, without concrete evidence, when OP says: don't ever trust {A} on issue {B}. Depending on what A, B is, OP will usually get treated differently.

A -> CCP. OP -> a concerned citizen.

A -> Race/Color/Religion/Gender. OP -> Racist/Sexist.

A -> Trump. OP -> a concern citizen.

A -> Scientist. OP -> conspiracist.

But one thing that I am sure is that it'll never ever be constructive. Not mean to be disrespectful, but I do hope this type of comment won't ever get to the top of HN.

>>mnming+(OP)
I mean, if you say “don’t ever trust” an entire race/sex, then yeah, by definition you are racist/sexist.

>>rlt+u
Reading HackerNews has lowered my trust in the demographic categories that make up the majority of this forum, including ones I belong too.

>>rlt+u
What about pointing out more factually based claims such as which groups commit more crimes, etc?

>>P0l83q+Q
If you find yourself in this scenario, you're likely already stuck in a Kafkatrap situation[1].

[1] https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-m...

>>rlt+u
I agree. The problem arises when people predominantly of a certain race or sex attempt to define the narrative around racism or sexism that affects another race or sex. It's a little difficult to find that trustworthy, in my opinion. People should be trusted to speak about data and other verifiable sources as well as their own experiences.

>>rlt+u
It's perfectly acceptable in mainstream media to say "don't ever trust men on issue of sexual assault". Most people deny that's sexist, some even say that disagreeing with this position is sexist!