Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlebar | Hacker News Reader

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized".

TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect.

The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.

This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.

I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.

Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.

View on HN

> I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.

While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.

There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.

> let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by.

I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?

I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in.

What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias.

Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.

> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?

What makes you think they don't care about victims? My loved ones and I volunteer a lot in this area.

> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations...

There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.

I guess we could argue about which kinds of innocent people are worth protecting, but I'm not really interested in getting into that business.

There aren't many specifics being posted here about particular stories, but there mostly seems to be consensus that egregious behavior requires at least immediate dismissal and that less cut-and-dry incidents require some sort of correction. There also seems to be agreement that better awareness of poor behavior is a good thing.

There just doesn't seem to be consensus that anonymous posts sent out by anonymous curators is the best way to go about this. That doesn't mean some people are indifferent to awful things. They're just wary that the tools we use to help people don't end up hurting others.

>> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?

> What makes you think they don't care about victims?

I never said that anyone does or doesn't care about anyone else.

I said that the words written here on HN focused on the spectre of false accusations, rather than on the victims of harassment, abuse, and worse. I also said that this is a common, much-discussed failure mode, and that we should know better.

> There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.

Right.

But in this particular instance, we're talking about wanting to protect people from those they're harassing. This list is very clearly not being used to bully anyone, and part of my objection is with the kneejerk assumption that this must be what's going on, and that privileged white men aren't getting sufficient protection in their workplace.

What I am saying is, rather than restricting our consideration to fringy concerns of how this list might harm white men (it doesn't), we should also (not even exclusively! -- just also) consider how it affects everyone else.

[edited for formatting]

> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?

you're connecting two points that are not naturally connected. caring about false accusations does not exclude caring about victims.

additionally, some awareness of the current political climate is necessary for this discussion. false accusations have been weaponized in other contexts.

> false accusations have been weaponized in other contexts.

I really think you are missing my point, sadly.

what's your point then? maybe you're missing my point.

My point is:

> This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.

so I'm sure now that you're not understanding my point, which is that implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities.

a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.

however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.

what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct? why do you suppose it will accomplish that? my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.

additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.

> implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities.

This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.

I've repeated this a number of times, but people are not hearing it. This is exactly my point, that people here are fixating on the non-problem of false accusations instead of the real problem of microaggressions, macroaggressions, and harassment proper in the workplace.

> a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.

Not everything bad that people do to one another rises to the level of criminal misconduct. And not every victim of a crime wishes to confront their perpetrator in the court of law. Part of the point of this list is to raise awareness of stuff which does not go through the courts, but which is nonetheless bad.

> however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.

Nobody is accusing anybody of anything.

People are relating stories. "This happened to me." That is not an accusation. The only victims here are the people relating the stories.

If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.

> what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct?

That is one purpose to the list, yes.

> why do you suppose it will accomplish that?

By raising awareness, as TFA and I have said multiple times now.

> my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.

Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.

Those accidentally committing transgressions -- either called out or not in the newsletter -- may now be made aware that they are doing something bad. Through this mailing list, I personally have learned of whole classes of things that are hurtful to people, that I just didn't realize before. That makes me a better, more considerate person.

> additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.

Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something.

Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

But, one more time: Nobody is being accused of anything via this list.

Notice how many times above you assume that's not the case and that people are being falsely and publicly named and shamed, despite this having been made clear multiple times in thread? Notice how few times you have considered why people might be posting to this list? This is exactly what I am talking about.

This thread was a great opportunity to talk about harassment in the workplace. Instead it's turned into a bunch of people complaining about something that is not happening, but is bad because it might hypothetically hurt privileged white men.

Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.

> This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.

I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.

> Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.

they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise. the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.

> Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something. Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.

this seems like deliberate misinterpretation of my point. I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well. I'm not making a legalistic argument I'm making an ethical argument. I believe those principles establish solid ethics for handling disputes, and are just as well suited for interactions between individuals they are for interactions between the state and an individual.

> Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.

Not the point. The point is that the slippery slope to truly bad outcomes begins with well intentioned systems like this one.

I think it's great that you are so worried about the well-being of people accused of harassment.

I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of women and minorities in tech, who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.

my interest isn't narrowly constrained to people accused of harassment. my interest is in setting standards for ethics, which I find to be absolutely essential at this cultural moment because our standards of discourse and ethics seems to be breaking down.

I think it's great that you are so worried about the well-being of people who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.

I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of those who might be anonymously accused of harassment without evidence or opportunity to defend themselves.

-----

Does it sound better turned around? If not, why not? What are you attempting to communicate, and how might you state it more clearly?

If people were being named and shamed without being given an opportunity to defend themselves, I would be concerned about that.

To my knowledge, as I have said a dozen times in this thread, that is not happening. Nobody here can point to a single instance of that happening as a result of this email list. All anyone has offered is an entirely hypothetical slippery-slope potential.

We know that people are being harassed in our workplaces all the time. That's a real problem, which is why I am concerned about it.

You keep equating these two issues -- harassment and false accusations -- like they're both big problems that we need to worry about equally. I have zero evidence that this is true, and tons of evidence that it's not.

You may wish to consider the possibility that I do not "keep equating" any two issues. Indeed, I have not engaged with any other person at any point in this entire discussion.

But no matter. Thank you for clarifying your perspective. I understand, appreciate, and empathize with it. After all, here before us is a clear, real, known problem that hurts the vulnerable and weak among us. Why would we worry about what else could go wrong, when we know for certain that women and minorities are being hurt?

>I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.

So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think people submit things? Your argument seems to boil down to "these 15000 people don't actually know what's good for them", and I find that (as a subscriber) incredibly infantilizing.

>they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise.

That's not what an accusation is. "Someone did something that made me feel uncomfortable" does not accuse anyone of anything.

>the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.

You don't think the list curators thought of that? C'mon.

>I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well.

Which are irrelevant. Half of those things don't apply in civil cases, much less a company's HR process, much less something that isn't a disciplinary tool. But if we're going to use the constitution as a point of argument, it also prohibits restrictions on speech so if Google as a company intends to uphold the constitution, it shouldn't restrict its employees right to speak to each other about anything, including complaints about perceived sleights.

Once again: comparing this list to any kind of disciplinary tool or group is misleading and conveys a misunderstanding of the list and Google.

if the list has no function with respect to regulating behavior (which is what a disciplinary tool is), then what is it's function?

think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.

Its mission, as I understand it, is to inform people of ways in which coworkers feel hurt or uncomfortable, so that employees may better understand each other. Anything beyond that is driven at an individual level.

Google knows exactly the times, places, and details of how Levandowski did questionable operations on his laptop.

If management wanted to find out who posted what on yag, it would have no problem doing so.

Sure, but there's no evidence that that is happening at all, and if it did the mailing list would die. People aren't getting fired over things that came up on YAG. People aren't getting disciplinary action over things on YAG. People aren't being passed over for promotions over things on YAG. What real (not hypothetical) harm is there?

>If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.

I agree with you but please don't single out us "white dudes", we can be victims of harassment and discrimination as well and we benefit from the yes@google list as well as anybody else.

I'm also a Googler. Unlike you, I'm forced to comment anonymously, using a throwaway I just created using Tor. Why? Because I'm a member of one of the "privileged" groups that many think make up too great a portion of Google's employee base, and because some people (especially the ones graduating from college these days) think I'm an oppressor just because of my race and gender.

Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication. Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid before in my life.

The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart, it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't intend to say.

Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve problems.

Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that any organization should foster?

I'm truly sorry you feel this way.

I'm another white man who works at Google. I don't feel this way. You see me here commenting using a username that's easily traceable to my real identity. So we are reacting to a similar situation quite differently. What's the difference between us? I don't know.

I also think that your having this feeling is not WAI -- Google has been pretty clear that they want everyone to feel psychologically safe at work.

Ultimately what you have is a feeling -- it's not a fact, or even an opinion. I can't argue you out of it. But feel free to reach out to me IRL if you want to talk about it. I am easy to find.

Another throwaway here. Let me explain why I'm afraid.

Discussion that I've seen around microaggressions seems to land on the idea that, much like sexual harassment, one can be guilty without intent or awareness. This is a difficult to balance situation because, on the one hand, you have the fact that we as white men do not know what it feels like to be "othered" or harassed every day of your life, thus making our own judgment of what constitutes fair and unfair treatment somewhat skewed. On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.

Prior to the current email list under discussion, there was a web app internally for tracking microaggressions. I remember reading it and being horrified at the treatment that non-white people in general, and women in particular, endured - story after story of degradation, insults and bullying. Referring to these actions as "micro" aggressions was comically understating their magnitude. However, I did see one or two stories that I thought were an extremely uncharitable interpretation of a normal, everyday situation. I vividly recall one - let me attempt to retell that story here: "One day I was waiting for the bus to ${SOME_DESTINATION}. The bus stop was unusually busy, lots of people were around. Somebody said out loud 'Wow, looks like everybody is going to ${SOME_DESTINATION} today'. This comment was aimed at me because I was not white."

In the above scenario, I acknowledge the possibility that the speaker was aiming a negative comment at the reporter...but surely it is also possible that a non-biased person would make that comment innocently, perhaps even without knowledge that the non-white person were present? The reason I am afraid is that I can imagine myself making an innocent comment like that, bereft of any bias (implicit or otherwise), and I am afraid of what the consequences might be. Having a discussion about the comment would be fine, but what if I were to be brought in front of HR and have it formally recorded in my employee file? What if I received explicit disciplinary action? Could I be fired in circumstances like this?

As I've said, I recognize the legitimacy of the vast, vast majority of these grievances as well as the need to share them. What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty. Without acknowledgement that communication is challenging and an innocent comment can be interpreted uncharitably, I am afraid of the potential consequences.

> What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty.

Can you handle a little guilt, though? It sounds like you can -- you're saying, I know I'm not perfect, I know I can be better.

I think that is, to a first approximation, the standard applied to employees at Google.

> On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.

In the story you relate, does the accuser actually have any real power? They told their story, and...that's the end, right? I think you're assuming somehow that every time someone says "someone did this shitty thing to me," they want HR to fire that person. I know from talking to people who have had shitty things done to them that that's not true. People -- victims, HR -- have a sense of proportionality.

And I'm sure someone here can come up with an anecdote that shows someone acting without proportionality. But the fact that the system isn't perfect doesn't mean it's wrong as a rule, and consider that for every one accused who is acted upon disproportionately, there are surely many more victims who never seek or see justice. So if the system seems more imperfect to you lately, perhaps what is actually happening is that the imperfections are being felt more equitably.

If Google fired every white man who referred to a group of people men+women as "guys", there would be very few of us left. I don't mean to say that stuff like that isn't important and that we shouldn't change our language, just that degree of harm and intent are important. I have never heard anyone from HR suggest otherwise.

If I can make a guess as to where this fear might be coming from: A friend at another company related a story to me about how she tried to gently correct a coworker's microaggression. He blew up at her, angry that she was making a big thing out of a little thing. Which she wasn't, objectively or in intent. But then she took the blowup to HR.

So that's what happened, but I have to imagine his story is going to be, I made this innocent comment, and then I got taken to task with HR over it.

I'm sure many people have stories like that, where they completely miss the point about what they're actually talking to HR about. And then maybe these stories make their way to you, and you conclude, "gosh, I'm terrified of stepping out of line, look at the awful thing that happened to person X for doing basically nothing. And this other thing in YAG, I did that myself recently. I am terrified." But I suggest there's a different way to look at the same data that paints a quite different picture.

I replied to you an hour ago attempting to explain why I, a white man who works at Google, was also somewhat afraid. I made an effort to explain my feelings constructively while recognizing the existence of my privilege and the necessity of an outlet for people not like me to speak up.

The comment was flag-killed.

I can't speak for the other commenter, but I would never risk attaching this opinion to my real identity, and thus I'd never come to you IRL to discuss this.

It doesn't matter that the complaints are anonymous. The ultimate end result of this produces anxiety, even if action is taken. It is passive violence on a mass scale instead of healing occurring in one place. People should not want every fracture or trespass humming in the background to remind us. We should be moving on, dedicating our focus on being better people, achieving new heights, real things that progress us forward, that deserves recognition, not pain, not being known as a victim of something. I feel that is the way of our society now, a mad obsession with pain and offense. Violence shifted into an abstract form...

Taken (very) broadly, I agree. A list like this shifts a burden onto those of us who have privilege, as we're now aware of the bad shit that goes down around us that before we might never have seen.

Hopefully it makes us uncomfortable enough to change our actions, thus obviating the need for this discomfort at all.

It is natural that we want to take from those who have and give it to those who have not. Whether it economical benefit, experiences, or knowledge.

But in this case, I am unconvinced that scaling these experiences in this environment is a healing force. I think there is a missing piece here and one organization alone will not produce the best solution.

> I am unconvinced that scaling these experiences in this environment is a healing force.

You might be right. But I think that's a limited point.

Mistreatment of women and minorities is as old as time. All that's changed here is that they're talking about it in a public forum.

Maybe that helps heal things (I tend to think it does, by way of raising awareness), maybe, as you say, it doesn't help. Maybe it even hurts.

But I am not about to tell victims how to deal with their own pain.

You seem to be confused. Written words are not violence.

Another definition of violence is "Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.". As long as something is a force of trespass on a being it can count as violence.

There are many studies that also prove emotional trauma and conflict also produce responses similar to physical pain in the brain.

It's concerning to me, but not for the reasons you listed. Naming names isn't the only way to out someone on such a list. Details about time, place, personalities, specific words said, etc, can unintentionally out someone.

And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.

I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.

(Googler w/ the obvious disclaimer)

The moderator(s) have actually been quite good about removing or otherwise obfuscating the details you mentioned.

The entries are usually along the lines of "A (male) engineer said $AWFUL_THING to another (female) engineer in a large meeting". Specific enough that you understand the $AWFUL_THING but generic enough that you can't easily infer who the people are.

I would guess most subscribers simply like gossip and watching train wrecks.

It's like old days of Gawker.com. You could rationalize that you were doing a true public service by participating in the "name and shame" game. Or you could just be there to take pleasure in other people's misery.

Also, look at 'name and shame' subreddits like the SRS communities. Those places are toxic. While I think that there's some value to be had in viewing other people's missteps and learning how to improve based upon them (a favorite quote of mine, "the best way to cure your bad habits is to see them in others"). However, a wide scale list like this one does not seem to me to be good.

For example, the reason aviation gets safer and safer is because every time there's a mistake it's documented, studied, and then if corrections need to be made, they are made. What's not helpful is some open forum where people just make anonymized complaints that some airline has bad pilots or crappy planes. Maybe that's not the best analogy, but I think there's something there...

There's no naming and shaming in "Yes, at Google". From the article: "Usually, the people in the complaints are not named."

Not sure that helps much. At worst, people will start guessing and perhaps suspect the wrong people. And many people can probably identified from the context. Furthermore, there can be no defense against the accusations.

Empirically, this does not happen. It's a company of like 70,000 employees. You're not going to be able to guess the people involved when the company is that size. Maybe if it was a company on the order of 100s of people you'd be able to.

This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.

Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was.

Especially since it sounds like the stories are personal, you can just figure what team the victim is on and narrow down the list of possible offenders to a few. Usually there are details: senior/junior, married/unmarried, old/young, manager, direct report, colleagues, etc, etc.

You can figure it out... Not in all cases, but most of the time I'm sure it's easy to figure out...

> Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was.

I have to ask, are you saying this because have you read the stories and been able to narrow down who it was? Or are you just assuming? The stories are extremely vague, and they're curated by someone who removes unnecessary detail from the stories to make sure they stay anonymized.

Here's the type of story you might see in the mailing list (this is a fictitious example along the lines of what actually shows up) "I had a meeting with a male team mate and a male employee from another group. The employee from the other group would only address my male colleague despite me being the lead of the project."

That's what most of the stories are like, with few identifying details, and just a few sentences at most describing the situation. The stories are intentionally obfuscated and brief. If this was a real incident, I'd have no idea if someone from my team was involved, or if it was my manager, or any other person I worked with. The people involved will be able to figure it out if they're reading, but in the overwhelming majority of cases there'd be no way of knowing.

The only time I've every seen someone figure out who was being mentioned was when they outed themself.

> privileged white men like myself

The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.

The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.

I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.

> why people might submit anonymously to such a list > This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.

Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.

> The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.

That's not what privilege is. Its about how society treats people as a whole. As as a whole, white men benefit from their gender and race. Yes there are white people who are poor or have other issues. Yes there are black people people who are wealthy or in positions of power. Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends

How does society treat people as whole? can you explain what advantage do non-white-males have over everyone else?

> Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends

Sorry mate, if you look at statistics, Asians earn more in America than 'whites', so I guess we should start calling Asians privileged then, right?

> The former president of the US was a bkack man

...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".

Racism and systemic oppression didn't get solved just because you can cherrypick examples well.

I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity. Which is a good indication that society is still skewed.

And Trump was called Hitler, Idiot, Psychopath and all sorts of other things. Presidents simply attract some amount of hatred.

Not to mention how many liberals take smug joy in mocking Trump's skin tone, without the least bit of irony..

The US doesn't have a long history of oppressing people who use fake tan sprays so the two really aren't comparable.

What about people with red hair? I think they have a history of being bullied?

... He just had a tan from tanning / being in Florida.

http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a26621/donald-trump...

OK? The US doesn't have a history of oppressing white people with tans either

So you're in the camp of "It's not racism or bigotry, as long as it's against whites?"

I do not believe that people making fun of Trump's bad tan are motivated by racism, no.

What is your definition of racism?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Yes, to take your point further: instead of any of those names, for Obama people chose a racial slur. They could have just as easily used Hitler, Idiot, Psycopath. That would have been a better test of whether our society was in some post-race society that people think we're in just because we got one black president, once.

If that doesn't make you stop and think, I'm really not sure what else will.

They just call people what the suppose annoys them most. That is why they call women cunts and men gay or sexist or whatever. Would you say sexism is only over when men are being called cunts and bitches?

Actually it seems to me Nigger is a lot softer than Hitler. It basically means "black person I don't like because they are black". Hitler means "psychopathic mass murderer".

Besides, this is again the "there is an asshole in Kansas" line of thinking. Just because you can find somebody, somewhere in the universe who is an asshole, it doesn't prove that everybody is an asshole.

I don't think that first line is true, most adults are able to be disagreeable without using a slur, such as us. So no, I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).

Second, there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage. On this point I would hope we would agree. Also, I find comparisons of Trump to Hitler silly and overreactionary (and I have a book recommendation for those that want to learn how Hitler actually rose to power).

Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.

The ultimate lack of empathy from both sides is what really bothers me, the culmination of which is the continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society. I may as well proclaim we are a species that lives on multiple planets because we sent humans to the Moon once.

But people get angry and want to insult each other. Sure, it would be nicer if they wouldn't, but it is not in itself related to racism or sexism. I guess the unwarranted insults are often the most annoying, because there is no possible counter.

> most adults are able to be disagreeable without using a slur, such as us

The whole point of an insult is to get the other side angry, not necessarily for it to have roots in reality. I do agree that it's not a good way to have an argument. If I want to insult you I'll look at what hurts you the most.

Here is something that's not being called out as racist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ulvcqaiM8

> I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).

Sexism exists because:

- there are a few actually sexist males and females out there see: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marissa+mayer+gender+bias&...

- biology is sexist and there is little we can do about that

- sexism can be used as a great excuse for failing and it can be weaponized, you can threaten your boss that you'll call him sexist if you, the female don't get the promotion instead of the more qualified male

What I don't believe exists is: systematic sexism, that I believe is made up to be the ultimate excuse for everything.

> there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage

There is no difference if your objective is to hurt the other person's feelings, you pick whichever is most effective.

> Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.

I mostly noticed this from Hilary supporters, it's not an eye for an eye thing: http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters

> continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society

Do we have slavery? No

Is it acceptable to be openly racist? No

What is your criteria for a 'post-race society'? What other checkboxes do we need to hit to get there?

Systematic sexism is tens of thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier, the opposite of which does not happen at a huge scale (but is also wrong). There is a difference between institutional isms (eg slavery, separate-but-equal) and systemic isms (eg private schools in The South, disproportionally higher rates of police brutality of minorities).

Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.

Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.

> Systematic sexism

systematic

Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic

If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?

> thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier

Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place.

Also, what about women telling women the same thing?

> Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.

Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.

> Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further

So these were your best arguments?

> as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.

I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering.

You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it.

If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.

> If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?

https://goo.gl/ceakLN

"relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part."

Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.

> Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?

It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration.

> Also, what about women telling women the same thing?

What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.

> Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.

People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.

> Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.

The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down?

> It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions

Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems?

> including seeing and treating women as decoration.

Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things).

Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo

> Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.

Or maybe it's just not really sexist.

> People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.

What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.

I of course was mistaken to choose the word "systematic". I intended to use the word "systemic". Though I am not surprised you did not offer me the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong.

I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective.

Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.

Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.

I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from").

So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions:

- "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman)

- "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman)

- "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?)

- "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?)

- "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)

Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion:

- "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering."

Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win.

Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do.

At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.

> the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong.

I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker.

> Though I am not surprised

Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you?

> For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.

No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage.

Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 .

> Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence.

If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not.

> Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote.

The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true

> Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.

I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'.

> (Rooted in strawman)

More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word.

> Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?

How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue?

I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that?

> (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)

The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them.

> Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win

It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions.

Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid...

> Language matters.

It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.

Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse.

I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.

>the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".

Not to minimize it, but I do wonder how often this sort of thing is elaborate trolling versus racism. Especially on a college campus.

I don't see a difference. racist trolling is a form of racism.

The motivation is (usually) different, so how you might try and stop it would be different as well. And, I'm honestly just curious.

Is making fun of a group of people and having no hatred towards them the same thing as actually hating that group?

If I tell a joke about black/asian/latino/<insert your favourite race or ethnicity here> then I'm automatically racist, then I'm exactly the same thing as the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church?

trolling and joking aren't the same thing. a joke is intended as humor and the audience understands it as such (even if they might not consider it funny). trolling is intended to cause offense and distress. even if a racist troll does not authentically hold racist beliefs, they are displaying a level of insensitivity in communication that is identical with racist speech.

> Racism and systemic oppression didn't get solved just because you can cherrypick examples well.

And then you just cherry picked an example:

> ...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".

Good job for being consistent!

> I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity

Trump is being called names all the time, they even call Trump voters deplorable.

> Racism and systemic oppression

If this so called systematic oppression would exists, than how did Obama get elected? It seems to me that even if there is systemic racism, it's ineffective.

Your comment contains a lot of appeals to emotion and very few facts, if any at all (for example, the claim that the "vast majority" of rape accusations is true definitely needs a source). This is the hallmark of someone who goes along with mainstream opinion without thinking for themselves. I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.

> Your comment contains a lot of appeals to emotion and very few facts, if any at all (for example, the claim that the "vast majority" of rape accusations is true definitely needs a source).

https://www.google.com/search?q=fraction+of+rape+reports+tha...

> I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.

Likewise. :)

That google link doesn't really support the claim. For example, the headline on the National Review is somewhat deliberately strong sounding...what's in the article is quite different.

I'm no expert, and not trying to sway opinion either way. But the results of your Google search only make it muddier.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com