Hacker News Reader

Comment by poet | Hacker News Reader

Five minutes ago I was looking for a donation link on your site, but I completely lost interest after reading this post. The person you replied to grew up in a lifestyle and culture different than you. This doesn't mean that he's greedy or that his motivations are meaningless. You seem like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder and that's not going to help you in the long run. Why would people be interested in engaging someone who spits venom after a fairly innocuous comment?

View on HN

People can get angry over something that another person would think nothing of. Even something as simple as throwing away a half-eaten candy bar. Just because a man is brought up to do something wrong, it does not absolve him of the fact it is wrong.

That 'innocuous' comment has enough social subtext for people of certain viewpoints to find it repulsive. Like, say, a guy running an anti-bribery campaign.

Personally, I don't begrudge people paying more to get better service/food, but extravagant tipping for better service in a situation where people are expecting to be served fairly sends a strong signal: "I am too good for your rules."

Not everyone has the same outlook on life as you do.

We can play this game all the way down to the most impoverished society on the planet. A poor Indian could find it reprehensible that a middle class American will throw away a candy bar. A starving African could find it reprehensible that a poor Indian will use comparatively expensive spices in his food. After all, why not eat the most tasteless food possible and then donate the extra money? The point is, unless you are from the most impoverished society on the planet, you are doing something that someone somewhere could find reprehensible because of social subtext.

The question needs to be asked, where does this game get us? Nowhere. All good people are ultimately batting for the same team. Sure, truly evil people should be named and shamed, but that's not what happened in this thread. Guelo picked a fight because he thought he had the right to, and he doesn't. At least, not with Leelin. Hateful dialogue has absolutely zero positive benefit and often hurts the person doing the hating: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067014.

> The point is, unless you are from the most impoverished society on the planet, you are doing something that someone somewhere could find reprehensible because of social subtext.

When you see a liberal with hunched shoulders, it is because this issue is bearing heavily on their mind. /s

You're right, of course. Selling all your possessions to donate the proceeds to a poor family only gets you so far, and then only in the short term. The real goal is battling for systemic change, either by fixing the system or boosting the economy to give more people more wealth. Infighting because you disagree on a 0.1%, that doesn't help at all, and is why passion needs a little control from time to time...

>Selling all your possessions to donate the proceeds to a poor family only gets you so far

Actually, done well, it goes quite far. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11950843

I still agree with your sentiments, of course.

Well said.

As an American who has lived in India, I am with Guelo.

The "everyday folks" the parent refers to--for most of us, (relatively) wealthy people with white-collar jobs living in rich Western societies--constitute some 5% of the world's wealthiest people. Most human beings living today are not in a position to blow $20 (Indian gross income per capita, per World Bank, 2008: $1040/yr) on a perk, let alone a bribe for something as simple as applying for benefits or starting a business. That's where the outrage comes from.

Education is an important part of changing that culture, and they deserve your donation.

You're argument is orthogonal to my point. I'm aware of the wealth differences. I see similar differences quite often in the inner city of Chicago. One overarching trend among the less well off that Guelo demonstrates is a venomance that gets in the way of cooperation and progress. As an example, I have seen young children refuse to be taught by quite capable teachers because the teacher is white and wears jeans that cost more than $20. There's an unfounded resentment here and it needs to be named. It's as if an apology is expected for being born into the middle class. The hate here is unhealthy because ultimately the person doing the hating is the one that loses.

My objection isn't to the wealth of the responder. My objection, and I think Guelo's, is that although there may be a market out there for sites that help people with the means throw around $20 bills, it wasn't really the time or the place to bring it up as a response to a site trying to fight genuine corruption, which the US does not suffer from much and which disproportionately affects the very poor.

Also, poverty in America is not, as far as I can tell, much like poverty in the US, although I've not spent any time in the rough parts of Chicago; like most middle-class white people, I spend most of my time on the north side.

The child doing the hating has lost already, they didn't lose because they hated after the fact. They're children growing up in one of the most neglected public school systems in the country in one of the most segregated cities in the country. When I was growing up there, I feared and hated white people too, because my only experiences of them were negative ones. Sitting in that horribly overcrowded, neglected school with my decade old books faced with a teacher who would have much rather taught at the private school his/her kids went to, and who thought that my motivations were as simple as jealousy over his jeans wasn't an easy situation for a kid, and probably still isn't.

And why exactly would you ascribe a trait or "trend" that you notice in Guelo to the "less well off"? Do you have to be poor to be against bribery - or, rather - tipping for special treatment? Is the only possible motivation to be against the corrupt administration of services jealousy? These are not rhetorical questions.

Unrelated: I am mystified by your competent use of the term "orthogonal" coming just two words after you used "you're" instead of "your." That is just bizarre!

It's not a grammar mistake, I have trouble when I type quickly. Another error that I make: I often type a word that sounds similar in place of what I actually meant. Case in point: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067123.

Innocuous? Don't make me laugh. I don't see this as spitting venom or that the poster has a huge chip on their shoulder - that's rather an extreme characterization.

My first thought on seeing the title for the site was that it was a project to try to reduce corruption and bribery. Because I was curious I clicked through to discover more. Nicely designed site, tackling a real social ill which obviously affects the poor more than it does the rich. Must have taken some time to get up and running, and as it's not a profit-driven thing, you'd need to be fairly passionate about what you're in it for.

And then along comes this guy making asinine comments about greasing palms to get the jump on people in queues and other trivial frippery - that he even presumed it was a site that would give those with fat-wallets a few hints at how to snare a few perks is telling.

Given your interpretation of this conversation I doubt you would have donated at all.

As far as the donation goes, my conscious is clear. I donate a big piece of my income to charities and my family and I work with thousands of impoverished kids in the inner city of Chicago every day.

Based on my experience, characterizing the poster as having a chip on his shoulder is accurate. I run into this problem all the time when working with those less well off than me and it's a serious problem. It's a significant barrier on communication between otherwise well intentioned people.

Finally, I stand by my characterization of innocuous. There was no harm or offense intended and I'd like to see you argue otherwise. I myself had the same reaction to the title of the submission and it's because of my middle class upbringing. What is importent here is not shaming people for their upbringing but rather to seek an understanding of why people react in different ways.

Hey ... no offense was meant, I never said that you're not a generous or giving person - I was just pointing out that we have no way of knowing whether you would have donated regardless of seeing the post that annoyed you. I think that you should go with your gut and donate anyhow :)

We'll have to agree to disagree, it's not obvious to me whether that guy his a chip - but in fairness I will always side with those less well off rather than those who are more affluent because all other things being equal that is the fair way to balance the inequalities in this world.

It was not innocuous, it was crass and gauche. I was snorting in derision whilst reading it and was very glad and not at all surprised that it was responded to strongly.

Middle class in the US (I presume you're from the US) is far beyond the reach of most of the world, when will you begin to learn this? I'm from Ireland where we as a nation only recently became affluent, maybe this colors things somewhat. Look, I have no issue with you but it's easier to rub shoulders with other people from vastly different backgrounds due to the decentralized open nature of the Net and maybe we should all remember that :)

First, it's "conscience", not "conscious".

Second, the word "innocuous" means "harmless", not "not intended to offend".

It's quite obvious that the original comment was not intended to offend anyone. The guy who made it was probably oblivious to its potential offensiveness.

But that doesn't mean it was harmless. He was basically advocating making bribery easier, which is not only offensive to many people (no matter what his intentions were), but could very well make the world worse if people start acting to make what he's advocating a reality.

That said, kudos to your volunteering efforts and donations. More people should follow your example.

When being pedantic, it's best to be right: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocuous.

    1: producing no injury : harmless
    
    2: not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : inoffensive, insipid

But it was likely to give offense, and did give offense (as is evident by the responses he got).

I can't find any evidence that guelo, or his consulting company, was in any way involved in the site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com