Hacker News Reader

Comment by vowelless | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if the original email was more about this point in the "Pledge":

> That I shall not talk or act in ways that could make minority groups feel bullied, harassed, intimidated, stalked, stereotyped, or belittled; examples of minority groups include women, people of color, lesbians, gays, and people who are disabled, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, intersex, transgender, and gender-variant;

It specifically talks about "minority groups". Presumably, the person who emailed John felt himself part of the "majority", or at least not covered in the "minority" groups.

I wonder why the pledge explicitly talks about minority groups? Why not just say that there should be no bullying, harassment, etc. period.

FWIW, I am a "person of color" (I do dislike using that phrase).

View on HN

> I wonder why the pledge explicitly talks about minority groups? Why not just say that there should be no bullying, harassment, etc. period.

I think those groups are explicitly listed because not everyone believes all of those groups really exist. Similarly, some people believe that belonging to some of those groups is a choice.

Further, I'd imagine that all of those groups will be minorities at LambdaConf, but not all of them are minorities everywhere (women, people "of color", etc.)

I, too, am "of color" and dislike that phrase because A) it means nothing, B) it implies that being "of color" is abnormal and requires someone to quality the word "person", and C) there are way more of us than of non-colored people (whatever that means).

I really do think that there is a very important distinction to be made between what intrinsically makes people who they are and what is just their opinion, a matter of choice.

I may not be very articulate but race/ethnicity/origin/gender/nationality/sex/sexual-orientation/ice-cream-flavor-preferences (I do not list everything and may even be confused myself for some of them, hope I can get explained which and why if I am wrong) are fundamentally part of yourself as a human being. I mean that being challenged to change them is obviously not a process prone to success (if even technically possible for some).

However, I cringe a lot when religion is packed in the same bag. That's a matter of opinion and all opinions are in my book welcome to be challenged. You can be wrong about ideas/opinions. Being religious only means that, right now, you believe something. And people have shown again and again that they can change their mind, be converted to a new one or even just reject the current one without choosing an other one.

Protecting religions as being a defining part of the human being is not only wrong but so dangerous too for freedom of though. I dislike that so much when their are put on the same plan as really person(human-being?)-defining things that people have fought for in order to be acknowledged as equal-rights humans. Especially when so many religious systems refuse to recognize those equal rights.

P.S. : I also do think that political affiliation is exactly on the same level as religion. They are just a choice and it's problematic (even damageable) equating them with the rest in CoCs.

>I really do think that there is a very important distinction to be made between what intrinsically makes people who they are and what is just their opinion, a matter of choice.

I really don't think people actually choose their opinions. Humans' opinions are affected by a wide variety of different conscious and unconscious stimuli, such as culture, socio-economic background, and even genetics. Humans are illogical, and will likely post-hoc rationalize their biases rather than logically thinking up an ideology.

For example, you may be religious because you sincerely believe in it, or because you just happen to grow up in a religious family. Or you may adhere to a political affiliation because you sincerely think it was a good idea...or because you live in an area that shares that same political affiliation and associate with friends with that political affiliation. Or because some celebrity endorses a political affiliation and so you follow that celebrity and so on and so forth.

Assuming humans are fully rational beings is problematic (and damageable), and it's better to provide protections than to take them away just because your own bias makes it seem okay to do so.

> [Religion is] a matter of opinion and all opinions are in my book welcome to be challenged.

Religion is a strange word that means different things to different people. It's worth mentioning that whether God actually exists is not a matter of opinion. If everyone was omniscient, agnosticism would be moot. We'd all be atheists or deists.

With that in mind, the religious don't see God's existence as a matter of choice any more than someone's ethnicity is a matter of choice. In fact, many sooner believe they'd change their ethnicity before their relationship with their God (Galatians 3:28).

That being said, healthy challenge and discussion are good things.

If you were right, apostasy would not be a thing. Obviously it is always possible, and it does happen, for religious people to stop being so.

Because of this, equating religion and ethnicity is can of wrong and (dare I say) "bigoted". You should think of people who are attacked because of their ethnicity (say) and as such touched in their inner human nature. That is the worse attack one could have to sustain.

Now, show me someone technically changing his ethnicity to keep its relationship to god, and I would admit that we live in a different reality than I thought. Of course they may not want to, but the possibility, therefore the choice, of apostasy, is always present. For anyone.

You're still not seeing reality as a believer would. It's not a matter of choice whether God exists any more than it's a matter of choice whether gravity exists. And, in fact, gravity could cease to exist before God could.

> ...it is always possible, and it does happen, for religious people to stop being so.

But it's not possible for people to wish God in or out of existence. It's easier to wish yourself into being a parent. Or married. Or disabled. But we protect those classes. And rightly so.

You mention inner human nature, but in Judeo-Christian teaching, humanity was created in the image of God (imago dei). To deny that everyone was not created in the image of God actually does attack their nature. Though Christians are taught not to retaliate in kind, it is reasonable for them to insist that others are treated with dignity and respect.

So there's a lot there, some of it subtle at first glance:

1. believers don't believe God's existence is a choice 2. God created us in His image so it is a question of identity and human nature 3. mature Christians aren't supposed to be offended if they are mistreated for their beliefs 4. ...and they certainly don't need codes of conduct since God will enforce justice at the end of time 5. though it's also good for Christians to make sure people are not mistreated because of their beliefs

Well, some in the trans group consider being a woman a choice.

No, they consider your sex and gender to be determined by your brain, not by your body. Traditionally, society thinks that they have a choice. They have told us that they do not.

I took at it the other way. In my experience, and I think it's not controversial to claim this, devout (is there a better word? active?) Christians are in the minority in technology context. And especially so in 'tech cities' like NYC and SF. Specifically recognizing some minorities as protected and others as not protected can come across as antagonistic.

Of course that's just anecdotal, but it's worth considering that Christians do feel pressure to 'stay in the closet', so to speak.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com