Comment by Latty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Latty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill.

Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Furthermore, this misses the point - even if there wasn't active discrimination in that way, it doesn't mean there isn't societal pressure or a need for minority groups to get minorities into a community in order to integrate that culture.

> We'll never be rid of all discrimination. It's just a flaw in human nature. We should keep educating and working against it. But I think we're largely past the institutionalized (to say nothing of codified) discrimination of the past centuries.

I mean, sure, but I'm sure people said the same thing about murder, then rape, etc..., etc... - we should always be working to reduce these things.

We are not at the point where discrimination is some crazily rare thing like murder is in modern societies.

> Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things.

Could you name a two or three so we have some idea what you're talking about?

Sure, I grew up in an affluent suburb of Atlanta.

If you had a Kerry sticker on your car in the high school parking lot, there was a squad of kids that would break your windows, slash your tires, and key your car. The school had cameras, but refused to investigate the matter.

I had friend who was gay, and after he got off the bus one day, all of the kids on that side of the bus threw rocks at him. He was in a coma for a few days.

In modern day Atlanta there is widespread stoning of gays? I find this a bit hard to believe.

Cobb County is way more red than most of Atlanta.

Is there widespread stoning of gays? One would think in the year 2017 this might make the news, or at least YouTube or Reddit.

This was in 2004. And define widespread? Like was it sure to happen if you were out? No. If you started a GSA club like he did, more likely. I think the term 'uppity' was thrown around.

> And define widespread?

Well, was this an isolated incident or not?

Better yet, let's use your prior definition:

> If someone refuses me, the white straight male, the chance to buy something, I go somewhere else. That's not the case for some minorities however. If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. Commonly discriminated minorities have to be protected because they have a right to do what they want as well. Just as you are free to do what you want, but that doesn't include murdering people. You are free to refuse service, but not based on things that mean that person can't get service anywhere.

> Well, was this an isolated incident or not?

An event that had the implicit backing of the school administration sent a widespread message.

Lynching in the wasn't 'widespread', but it's message was. According to this: http://time.com/3703386/jim-crow-lynchings Georgia had 586 total lynchings from 1877 until 1950. That's about 1 per county per generation.

> your prior definition:

Check usernames.

> An event that had the implicit backing of the school administration sent a widespread message.

If you check the thread you'll clearly see my interest wasn't whether discrimination happens at all, it's whether it is to the point of being literally ostracized, as was stated.

>> Could you name a two or three so we have some idea what you're talking about?

> sure..

Perhaps don't impersonate other people if you don't want to be mistaken for someone else.

Then again, I suppose by now I should know better than to expect reasonable discussion in threads such as these.

> If you check the thread you'll clearly see my interest wasn't whether discrimination happens at all, it's whether it is to the point of being literally ostracized, as was stated.

You don't think putting the kid who was being 'uppity' in a coma doesn't cause imply ostracization for the others like him? Particularly when there was no repercussions from perceived authority figures?

> Perhaps don't impersonate other people if you don't want to be mistaken for someone else.

It's hard to 'impersonate' on a forum where every post has my username on it. Are you new to the internet or something?

If you look up the word ostracize in the dictionary, you'll find no association with severity of injury.

> It's hard to 'impersonate' on a forum where every post has my username on it. Are you new to the internet or something?

I might ask you the same, answering a question that was asked specifically to another person isn't how you "internet".

He answered with a useful, relevant comment that provided the data point you were asking for.

I'll back his experience up with another source: https://thegavoice.com/atlanta-police-release-details-12-rec...

The point you were trying to make was that these were isolated incidents, that these people could live their lives around them. Reading that list, it's clear that isn't true - people threatening to kill you, beating you up, these aren't signs that you can live you life normally.

Clearly, we aren't in the same place we were when we had state-supported segregation, but there is a reason these minorities are still protected, and there is still significant discrimination.

This all means that there is a big difference between a community coming together in a space exclusively for them to try and push for inclusion, and discrimination.

> He answered with a useful, relevant comment that provided the data point you were asking for.

Pardon me for nitpicking, but I can't help it. :)

Here is the original post to which I replied: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704091

>> True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill.

> Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things.

The point of contention is not whether some (and sometimes very severe) discrimination exists, it is whether as he claims that there are places where it is so common/frequent that you could be considered ostracized. I was looking for proof of the latter (his original assertion), not proof of the former (that which was provided, and now provided by you).

> The point you were trying to make was that these were isolated incidents

I'm not asserting anything, I am simply being skeptical and asking for proof of an extraordinary claim.

If my "stance" pisses you off, I beg that you reconsider. To win over those who are still not "on your side" (and I'm not one of them, by the way), using exaggerations and half-truths is most definitely not the way to go about it, especially in this modern day "everyone's-a-victim" culture we live in. I am not your enemy, I'm just offering some well-intentioned advice on how to talk to your enemies in order to persuade them.

I was the one who wrote that original post.

I just don't understand how "some severe discrimination exists" but that doesn't ostracise people? You don't need everyone to hate you to be ostracised - just enough people to stop you living your life. If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally.

It's not exaggerations or half-truths - being gay, black or of a given religion (or lack thereof) can mean your life is basically unlivable in some communities. If you need more concrete examples, go read the ex-mormon subreddit, for example. People who, because they are atheists, are disowned by their family and lose every friend they ever had, and have to leave the only place they ever lived.

It's easy to not see it outselves and say "it's all stuff of the past", but it isn't. Even if your life isn't completely unlivable, quality of life can be severly reduced. I was talking about the extremes that triggered the laws, not trying to say that's the only thing that's an issue.

More importantly, the point of my first post (the root of the chain) was that minority groups that are designed to provide a path into a field aren't the same as segregation.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise

verb (used with object), ostracized, ostracizing. 1. to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.: His friends ostracized him after his father's arrest. 2. to banish (a person) from his or her native country; expatriate. 3. (in ancient Greece) to banish (a citizen) temporarily by popular vote.

> If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are there a significant number of such places? (There very well may be, if there is it causes me no mental anguish whatsoever to acknowledge this, it was merely a simple honest question from the very start of this absurd thread.)

> Even if your life isn't completely unlivable, quality of life can be severly reduced.

Now this sounds like a more honest description of objective reality.

Liberals often accuse those who are opposed to their ideas that they are small minded. Well, is it completely false that there is a relatively new movement that has taken hold on college campuses, where a significant number of students suddenly (as in, there was almost no incidences of this 2 to 5 years ago) need "safe spaces", and simply hearing ideas that they philosophically disagree with causes them to "literally shake", and people of color are now self-segregating themselves into their own events because suddenly mainstream society is so racist it is literally unbearable (despite the reality being continued improvement, if anything, in mainstream "acceptance" of people of color)?

It is my belief that the well-intentioned (actually, I'm not even sure) actions of some people on the left is significantly setting back the true progress of their stated intentions, and in many cases are causing genuinely serious mental illness in impressionable teens. I am not joking in the slightest when I say that these people (not you necessarily, but based on your faux incredulity I'm suspicious) are FAR more damaging to society than the "evils" they claim to be fighting.

And if your response to this is the typical smug liberal, deliberate misinterpretation of what I've said, that will be just yet another confirmation that your "movement" is insincere, whose goal is not to genuinely move society to a more accepting-of-diversity place as you claim, but instead that you are in fact an architect of hate, but just with a different target in mind. Some people are indeed just like that, some of my very best friends in fact.

> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are there a significant number of such places?

Yes, I'll make the same reference - the ex-mormon subreddit is an example where you will find a ton of stories of people being completely ostracised for their (lack of) belief. It's not just mormon's obviously, that's just a good example. It's really not hard to find that racism, sexism and other bigotry are alive and well today - people talk about it, precisely because it has such a large effect on their lives.

> Well, is it completely false that there is a relatively new movement...

I mean, I'm sure those people exist - I've seen no evidence of it being more than extremely isolated cases though, definitely not "a significant number" - as with any cause, there are people who go to extremes, but they don't reflect on "the left" any more than neo-nazis reflect on "the right" - they are a subsection.

You appear to be implying that this is somehow commonplace, but it's not.

Now, are you equating "girls only computing clubs" and examples like that I've given to "safe spaces" or "self-segregation"? Because they aren't. Again, as I've been making the point - we know it is hard to give opportunities to minorities when there is cultural expectation and barriers to entry. E.g: computing is a "boy" thing. Those kind of targeted groups are used as a force to push back on those barriers and societal expectations, allowing minorities opportunities they might otherwise not get.

I'll be absolute: I am a firm believer in free speech and debate, and universities are places to learn, and you need active debate for that. While people have a right to not be harassed (I've seen the claim that it's free speech to follow someone around a university campus or invade their living space, which is clearly just as dumb), that doesn't require infringing on debate to achieve.

The self-segregation thing I've literally never even heard of. The only examples I've seen were as protests, which is entirely valid.

I hear a lot of claims that there is some plague of "SJW"s destroying freedoms in a quest for safety - I've seen no evidence of this being anything other than a vanishingly small minority. People tend to claim this plague exists, cite one example of someone saying something obviously crazy, and then claim anyone arguing for social change is an crazy SJW who can be ignored. It's roughly equivalent to just claiming that everyone on the right is a nazi. Yes, there are some nutjobs out there, but clearly that isn't a representation of "the right" as it stands. The vast majority of "the left" is strongly in favour of protection of free speech.

Again, you were the one that was arguing my point - so your tone and direction seem off to me - are you really equating minorities working together to try and find routes around obstacles in place because of discrimination against them to segregation, and implying it is bad in the same way? That's the point I was originally making, and I honestly can't tell if you just cherry-picked a part of my point to try and nitpick and then go off on a tangent about how "the others" are worse, or if you believe that my point was invalid.

> ex-mormons

Actually, I think this is a valid case. But, let's be honest here, the only place you'd possibly be prevented from living your life is in some highly concentrated area like Salt Lake City. Sure, you'd definitely lose all your Mormon friends, but you are being rejected from what many people consider to be nothing short of a cult, comparing this to not being able to exist in society at all, or that it is geographically widespread, is a bit of a stretch.

So yes, this is most definitely wrong, and it is a "biggish" problem, but it is also very specialized and I would expect one of the very last "prejudices" (if you can even call it that) that will ever be solved.

> I mean, I'm sure those people exist - I've seen no evidence of it being more than extremely isolated cases though, definitely not "a significant number" - as with any cause, there are people who go to extremes, but they don't reflect on "the left" any more than neo-nazis reflect on "the right" - they are a subsection. You appear to be implying that this is somehow commonplace, but it's not.

Actually, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there are universities in the US where you can not host right wing speakers, the students will literally riot and attack people. Will they do this always, I do not know, but I think you'd be very hard pressed to find genuine modern day video of neo-nazis being physically violent, whereas there is plentiful evidence of leftists attacking people and rioting.

> Now, are you equating "girls only computing clubs" and examples like that I've given to "safe spaces" or "self-segregation"? Because they aren't.

Actually, this is a far better point. Yes, here society definitely still has a problem. But exactly what the problem is I don't think anyone knows. Part of the problem is that many/some of society/individuals see females as simultaneously the same and different. I think it is going to take some quite a bit more time for society to reach the point of emotional maturity where we can even have a reasonable conversation about this.

In the meantime, "Those kind of targeted groups are used as a force to push back on those barriers and societal expectations, allowing minorities opportunities they might otherwise not get" is an excellent way to go about it, and if everyone could just chill out and get rid of the chips on their shoulders I think we'd be about 80% of the way there.

> I'll be absolute: I am a firm believer in free speech and debate, and universities are places to learn, and you need active debate for that. While people have a right to not be harassed (I've seen the claim that it's free speech to follow someone around a university campus or invade their living space, which is clearly just as dumb), that doesn't require infringing on debate to achieve.

Thank you, because boy it's not very hard to find people that absolutely outright reject this idea nowadays. Hardly surprising as some of them host extremely popular news/comedy shows.

> The self-segregation thing I've literally never even heard of.

Graduation ceremonies for blacks only would be one example. In Canada of all places, not exactly a hotbed of racism.

> I hear a lot of claims that there is some plague of "SJW"s destroying freedoms in a quest for safety - I've seen no evidence of this being anything other than a vanishingly small minority.

No one claims it's a plague, but it seems to be growing (it is well beyond a few isolated cases) and it is genuinely a quite serious problem. I make no claim that this is absolutely proof in any way, but it is thought provoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92rOsjyLBs

> The vast majority of "the left" is strongly in favour of protection of free speech.

The vast majority? I guess it depends on the specifics of the definitions, but that the left, especially younger people, are increasingly unwilling to participate in genuine dialogue (because "the debate is over"), is unfortunate. And I think in time we will see that it will hurt your cause more than your opponents (see: the last US election).

> Again, you were the.....

Generally, I think mine was a general protest against a (perceived) instance of exaggerated victimhood, for lack of a better term. I hope you can see from what I say that my root concern is the lack of genuine dialogue in resolving the differences that still remain in society. The number of injustices for this stage of the game are absolutely disgusting, but as long as our two sides continue to fight about stupid things, the people who are served from us being split down the middle will continue to pick our pockets. I am of the belief that much of the remaining disagreement in society is engineered, as opposed to grassroots ignorance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com