Hacker News Reader

> It's sort of like being bullied in elementary school, and then high school, and then college, and then as a working adult. You never outgrow the bullying. Indeed, the bullying seems to get worse as one matures and loses the youthful physical characteristics which people often read as non-threatening.

It's not just the appearance of the people who bullies you. Bullying forces you to become more closed, and changes you fundamentally while you learn to resist it. Unfortunately, resisting bullying needs one to unlearn "inherent (baseline) trust" when meeting with new people, and unlearn "implicit trust" which is reinforced with the duration of civilized communication and relationships, because bullying can come from the least expected person at most unsuspected time.

Also, continuous bullying warps one's perception about discussion. Any sign of escalation causes any bullying victim to just change the subject and feel bad about itself, because bullying starts with (generally intentional) disagreement, then this disagreement is used for a basis for physical or psychological bullying. Bullied people may not hate from themselves, but they cannot be content with themselves either. They always think that something is wrong with them, and feel powerless to correct it, because continued bullying is only possible when the victim is bullied regardless of his/her character, intention, behavior or capacity.

Prolonged bullying really leaves deep wounds like trust issues, complete lack of self confidence, fear of communication and feelings of inferiority. These wounds are very hard to heal, because as time passes and one grows up, society thinks that these issues are over and doesn't care. Also, people don't seek help since these features are considered part of the character and deemed fixed after a certain age, but they are not.

Good friends, and a really caring person can change everything if the person wants to heal. It's hard, but not impossible.

How do I know this? Because I'm bullied for 10 years straight.

Edit: Clarify sentences.

How does that work if the usernames are anonymous? Saying you feel targeted does not mean you are being targeted.

I think what they mean is that because of their experiences they have less tolerance for hostility than you do.

Most of the time people are verbally hostile towards you nothing terrible ends up happening so you eventually learn to ignore minor hostility. However if you had the sort of bad experiences minorities have, you would learn to be wary of minor hostility, as it is often the precursor to major hostility or even physical harm.

You know how evolutionary psychologists often attribute human stupidity to adaptations that made sense in prehistoric times? Like your instincts tell you sugar is good for you because it used to be found mostly on fruit and nutritious berries, but nowadays the instinct leads you to eat junk food. In the modern world sugar has nothing to do with high food quality (just the opposite) but the instinct remains.

For minorities, their instinct to recoil at minor hostility is like that, except that instead of an ancient adaptation to deal with the life at the Savannah, it is the habit that helped you keep your sanity this very morning at the office when your asshole coworker yelled at you. In Stack Overflow nobody is going to yell at you or punch you or try to get you fired, but the instinct remains.

If you have less tolerance, how is that anyone else's problem?

Some people are also more prone to sunburn than others, but we don't say the sun needs to be less bright. You are in control of your own feelings. Yes, StackOverflow should generally have better language and reworked rules around content, voting and moderation, but that has nothing to do with how susceptible you are to comments on the internet.

Also why is it that minorities always comes down to not being male or white when half the planet is female and most of the planet is not white? Do we not have any other dimensions? It's a rather meaningless definition when used in context of a globally accessible site with anonymous user accounts where the audience already has a major commonality (interest in software development) that is far more inclusive than any irrelevant physical trait.

If some people are more prone to sunburn than others then you shouldn't have a developers' technical conference outdoors in the summer on a tropical area.

It may not be your problem or your responsibility to prevent other people's sunburns (they can buy their own sunscreen, right?) but I hope you realize that ignoring their preferences is shitty behaviour that will give you(r website) a bad reputation.

And it's not like protecting your conference from sunlight will benefit only the albinos. Sunburn resistance is not the same as immunity, so everyone benefits at least a little. Same with SO, even people with thick skin will benefit at least a little from a less toxic environment.

> even people with thick skin will benefit at least a little from a less toxic environment.

That argument is not entirely solid. After all the toxic environment is also the same environment that provides those answers. So if those two were positively correlated then decreasing toxicity could also drive down the answer quality. A cartoony scenario would be a stack overflow where everyone is busy assuring everyone else that their questions are good, non-stupid questions and they should be praised for asking them and wasting a lot of time on those instead of answering questions.

Of course we're unlikely to be at a global optimum here, so things can certainly be improved. You should just be more careful about analyzing those tradeoffs.

> they can buy their own sunscreen, right?

Yes, obviously. Personal responsibility instead of blaming others. In your scenario, some might like to be outside so how are you including them? That's the fallacy with trying to make everyone happy; it's impossible.

Anyways, that also was weird stretch of the analogy as it's the same as saying SO shouldn't allow any communication because some people may feel sad.

This thread is about people feeling that a comment was based on something when the reality is that they don't know. And because they don't know, saying it as fact doesn't make it so, hence we should not suddenly say that they are targeted just because they feel that they are targeted, even if they have a propensity to feel targeted more than others. Your feelings are your concern.

> If you have less tolerance, how is that anyone else's problem?

Call me a radical, but people should have a modicum of social responsibility towards each other.

> Some people are also more prone to sunburn than others, but we don't say the sun needs to be less bright.

Luckily, we don't need to, having invented sunscreen.

> You are in control of your own feelings.

No you're not. Feelings are sneaky that way.

> Also why is it that minorities always comes down to not being male or white when half the planet is female and most of the planet is not white?

The blog post doesn't refer to anyone as "minority", but as "marginalized".

Exactly, if you are more prone to sunburn, wear more sunscreen. Same as handling your own feelings.

And yes, feelings are completely in your head. Things happen in the world and your mind reacts a certain way. Nobody else knows how you will react nor do they have any control of your consciousness.

> Exactly, if you are more prone to sunburn, wear more sunscreen. Same as handling your own feelings.

If you could "handle your feelings" as easily as putting on sunscreen, literally every psychotherapist would be out of work.

> And yes, feelings are completely in your head.

Anything you will ever perceive is "in your head". You don't control a lot of it. "Positive thinking" doesn't cure depression or schizophrenia.

> Nobody else knows how you will react nor do they have any control of your consciousness.

Human reactions are actually fairly predictable. Being rude, arrogant or condescending is generally off-putting. Some amount of control can be exerted as well, for instance, it will almost certainly be impossible for you to not briefly picture a TINY PINK ELEPHANT after having read this sentence.

It's not about easy or hard, the point is that it is under your control.

If your emotions are subconscious and you yourself aren't fully in control then how could you possible blame someone else for them? If it's that simple to be affected then you could just as easily affect yourself back to the state you want to be in, hence it is a circular argument without basis.

The world happens. You react. Equip and train yourself to react differently if you don't like the outcomes.

Predictability does not mean causation, especially when it is not accurate 100% of the time and therefore subjective. Sure, when you yell at someone, they might become upset. But another person might not care at all. So are you now causing both anger and apathy in these individuals with the same statement? Or is it that they react as individuals instead and it's really under none of your control?

> It's not about easy or hard, the point is that it is under your control.

My point, if that hasn't been clear by now, is that your emotions are not under your control. Your physical reactions may or may not be.

> If your emotions are subconscious and you yourself aren't fully in control then how could you possible blame someone else for them?

People stimulate each other's emotions with their behavior, some behavior can certainly be measured to to elicit certain emotions. If I follow your argument, clearly people are in control of their behavior and they are also responsible for it (agreed). So, under certain circumstances, it should be possible to "blame" them, though I'm not focusing on that.

Your "solution" boils down to: "If you're so sensitive and not in control of your emotions, just go away." That's fine, but not every community needs to have such "low" standards.

> The world happens. You react. Equip and train yourself to react differently if you don't like the outcomes.

An online community is not "the world", we get to design such environments. In "the world", there are tigers and lions, but you wouldn't argue to set them loose on main street just to make people stronger and more vigilant, would you?

> Predictability does not mean causation, especially when it is not accurate 100% of the time and therefore subjective.

That's a pretty weak argument though, in "the world" you always have to go by approximations, even in science we struggle to remove subjectivity completely.

> Sure, when you yell at someone, they might become upset. But another person might not care at all.

Let's say I had the desire to punch a random person in the face, there's certainly an off-chance that some masochist would love to have this happen to them. It's clearly a subjective reaction. Yet, it's not acceptable to go out punching people, don't you agree?

> So are you now causing both anger and apathy in these individuals with the same statement? Or is it that they react as individuals instead and it's really under none of your control?

I must appeal to your common sense. If some behavior of yours causes, for example "50% anger, 30% apathy, 19% annoyance and 1% joy" across a selection of subjects, then the chance that any of it is not negative is 1%. Yelling at people probably isn't so far off from that, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN? Sure, I can't predict with 100% certainty what the reaction will be, but if something is 99% bad, it'll better have some strong upside for me to accept it in my community. Yelling at people doesn't have that upside, it's generally frowned upon, so it's reasonable to not allow it. Of course, most people generally understand and follow that without it having to be made a rule.

I'm not sure what you're arguing because we're not discussing probabilities or socially acceptable behavior. We're talking about cause and effect, of self control over actions and feelings. The standard is that you should have personal responsibility and control your emotions, the highest standard there is.

Yes, there are obviously certain patterns of behavior and you shouldn't punch people, however it is completely within their control what they feel and do about it. They can choose to hit back, or ignore you. Just because everyone reacts with anger to something does not mean you must. It only means that it's a common reaction, nothing more, and has nothing to do with control over that action itself. They choose to do something, you can choose differently, even if you're 1 in a million. What about that is confusing?

Either you believe you have the will to control your emotions and actions or you don't. And if think you don't and it's really that simple to affect your emotions without any mental control, then you must also accept that you can impart that same effect by just doing different actions and making yourself feel differently.

> Also why is it that minorities always comes down to not being male or white when half the planet is female and most of the planet is not white?

Because that use of language about marginalized/disadvantaged/underrepresented groups arose specifically in the context of racial minorities in the US, at a time when Whites were both an overwhelming majority and socially dominant it of proportion to their numerical dominance; the language is sometimes extended to contexts where “minority” is not strictly to accurate (though note that the article here does not make that error, it refers to “women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups”, not “minorities”.)

EDIT:

Also,

> If you have less tolerance, how is that anyone else's problem?

That someone doing unconsented harm is not absolved of responsibility for that harm because the victim is unusually susceptible is the moral principle underlying the eggshell rule [0], which applies widely in civil and criminal law, so it's not exactly a novel principle.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

The comment I replied to said minorities.

This isn't about society, it's about a website with worldwide access using anonymous usernames. Nobody is inherently disadvantaged. The exact issue is harsh replies and actions that stem from the gamification dynamics and strict moderation. It has nothing to do with physical traits of the user on either side, especially when users are anonymous. Minorities and marginalized groups are nice to mention in the current PC climate but have little do with the actual topic.

Law is based on provable damages, which is why it's particularly focused on physical harm. Your feelings are not included in that. Experiencing an emotion is not damage. Also tort law means the defendant had a duty to act in a certain way and failed to do so, with the plaintiff proving the failure of that duty led to the harm. Intent also matters a great deal so unless you can now derive and prove intentions and duty behind StackOverflow comments, this example does not apply to this topic.

> The comment I replied to said minorities.

Yes, and I answered your question about where the pattern of using “minorities” as it was used there came from.

> This isn't about society, it's about a website with worldwide access using anonymous usernames.

How is that not part of society?

> Nobody is inherently disadvantaged.

The issue with disadvantaged, underrepresented, and/or marginalized groups has very little to do with inherent disadvantage, and the suggestion that it centrally is about that is fairly broadly offensive, since it implies that such groups are generally inherently inferior.

> The exact issue is harsh replies and actions that stem from the gamification dynamics and strict moderation.

Whether or not that’s true, it had nothing to do with the question you posed and I answered, so I don't see why it is being offered in response.

> Law is based on provable damages,

True.

> which is why it's particularly focused on physical harm.

This is far less true.

> Your feelings are not included in that.

Yes, they are included in the scope of legally cognizable harms. While the eggshell rules name references physical vulnerability, civil and criminal law address (and the eggshell rule applies to) emotional injuries, as well.

> Experiencing an emotion is not damage.

Torts like those of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress demonstrate the falsitt of this generalization of the law, as does the “suffering” part of “pain and suffering” damages in other torts.

I should preface this by saying this isn't directed at the parent I'm replying to. It's just the point where I couldn't read anymore without posting. What is offensive is Stack Overflow using this obsequious, cloying, patronizing language and false equivalence -- that women/PoC are broadly inexperienced ("newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups") -- to virtue signal for more clicks and advertising dollars, or to push their recruiting effort. I find Stack Overflow's post shockingly distasteful. It takes a lot to offend me, but this is disgusting.

And couldn't they find a better person in this tech company to deliver this message than a white dude VP?

Then they explain that this is really, actually happening because the marginalized groups "do feel less welcome... because they tell us" (emphasis mine). Do these marginalized groups know how everyone else feels? Have the marginalized-but-anonymous users invented a telepathy device with which to gauge their feelings against others?

Please demonstrate how any Stack Overflow user can know that they feel something more or less than any other user.

> that women/PoC are broadly inexperienced ("newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups")

The quote doesn't say women and PoC are broadly inexperienced, it says women, PoC, and the inexperienced are examples of marginalized groups on SO.

It lumps them together in the same breath, obviously hoping to draw an equivalence in the minds of readers in order to make their preposterous proposition less offensive. Wielding identity politics as a means of creating marketing buzz is flatly vile.

Why are you even discussing tort law? Feelings are not damage. Has your emotional psyche has been permanently affected leading to challenges in how you function and cope in life? Feeling sad or frustrated or annoyed because your question was downvoted is not emotional distress. And what does this have to do with Stackoverflow? What's the duty of a commenter? How do you know the intent? Who's getting traumatized by that site specifically?

You're reaching here and if you are more affected than average by comments from other people (on SO or life in general) then perhaps you should work on that instead of claiming emotional suffering.

> Why are you even discussing tort law?

As I expressly stated, to demonstrate that two moral principals that contradict claims made upthread are well established in our society: (1) that the particular sensitivity of a victim to harm from a particular wrong doesn't mitigate the wrongdoers responsibility for the harm, and (2) that experiencing adverse emotional states is a harm.

I agree feeling targeted does not necessarily mean one has been targeted, and I do think that sometimes the feeling of being targeted is the result of past experience (comparable to post-traumatic stress disorder).

Though SO usernames are often pseudonymous, they are not always anonymous. For example, some SO profiles contain photographs of the user. Mine does.

Also, sometimes I search for information about users with whom I interact. I imagine others do the same.

We both agree "being targeted" is different than "feeling targeted". A third thing that is different than both of these is "being affected".

That is, even if someone from a marginalized group is not being targeted for being a member of a marginalized group, the negative effects of perceived hostility may be larger on people from marginalized groups than on people from dominant groups. Not always, but sometimes, and this is what SO seems to be taking to heart.

A few comments have suggested one solution is to improve the climate for everyone by welcoming new users with all their inexperience rather than discouraging them by enforcing standards of contribution achieved by elite longtime users. I wholeheartedly agree.

By encouraging newbies who don't yet know much, SO stands to grow its ranks and help newbies become experienced contributors. As a former educator, I know encouraging students in the directions they are doing well is much more pedagogically effective than tearing down students when they make mistakes.

Communities like SO would improve if they not only discouraged negativity but also encouraged non-elite participation. HN is one such community that does this well and the quality of the content here speaks for itself.

EDIT: reword first sentence; change "old-hands" to "experienced contributors"; add comma in second sentence.

Well said. I didn't understand this at all until the post yesterday "Walking While Black". Essays like that and comments like this are eye openers and should be spread wide to people of privilege. Perspective is powerful

I do not like this line of reasoning because it basically advocates walking on eggshells around everyone since it is not possible to model the potential fragility of mind of billions of humans.

I read some arguments that being drive-by downvoted without comments somehow made people unwelcomed. And you add to that that this is practically a form of PTSD.

If I am supposed to model people at the other end of the screen as "my downvote might trigger PTSD" then, mildly put, I do not find that model to be very helpful. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems like some sort of game-theoretic trap.

Disclaimer: I don't see myself as a kind person and asking me to spend extra mental energy just to be nice is like asking for a pound of my flesh. Thus the above may be motivated reasoning to ignore people who complain about the lack of kindness.

> I don't see myself as a kind person and asking me to spend extra mental energy

If you can't be kind, then the preferred action from you is for you to save your energy for the days when you can be kind. That's better for everyone involved.

Define "kind" and define "better for everyone".

If you don't know the meaning of those yet, save your energy for the day when you do.