Comment by Hokusai | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hokusai | Hacker News Reader

> While splitting the world into those who are “saints” versus those who are “pure evil” may protect oneself from pain and damage to their self-image, it ultimately stunts growth and development and ignores the ability to see the self and the world in all of its complexities.

I have seen this so many times in technical discussions that is not even funny. "I am right and everybody else are idiots" is a disease in many software companies.

Many technical solutions are trade offs. But creating absolute categories "solution A is perfect" and "solution B is bad" many engineers protect their egos and their own technical preferences. And that stalls growth, their own and the growth of the team.

> Those with a greater tendency for interpersonal victimhood also had a greater negative memory bias, recalling more words representing offensive behaviors and feelings of hurt

In technical environments, I have seen it related to bugs. The victimhood mindset tends to blame others for any production problems. And any try to bring an open and candid discussion is seen as an aggression. No technical review is possible as criticism of code or design is seen as just personal criticism and violently disregarded.

In the best companies I have worked for, teams are doers open to discuss designs without taking offense. All proposed solutions are understood as a trade-off between different options and that personal preferences may create bias on looking into problems. There is a growth mindset and are great companies were to learn and grow yourself. There is no evils or saints, but colleagues trying their best to solve a problem.

The line between good and evil runs straight through the heart of every man. The lack of charity to other people’s souls (cancel culture), combined with excessive charity to their incompetence (e.g. declining standards for customer service, managers beating around the bush instead of calling out sloth, etc.), seems to be the modern trend unfortunately.

> The lack of charity to other people’s souls (cancel culture)

How is "cancel culture" a lack of charity to other people's souls? How is it that largely powerless individuals who choose to embargo, sanction or ignore the powerful is cast as a "lack of charity" or a paucity of mercy? It is a backlash against the largely impersonal powers that hold sway over us; the bland and ubiquitous media, corrupt political powers, and empty-headed celebrity culture that fails to live up to the standards it expects in everyone else.

Merely because Fox News has given it a catchy title, does not mean it is new, unwelcome or a degradation in standards - it just means that the rich and powerful are afraid of it.

Destroying someone’s life for having the wrong opinions is not charitable to their humanity. It is not how America was until very recently. Sure, people have always been vilified for their views, but they’ve most times been able to continue making their private living nonetheless. Deviations from that, like the McCarthy Era, are rightly seen as wrongful failures to live up to this ideal.

As for the “rich and powerful”, do you mean high school kids making inappropriate jokes that become national news stories, blue collar guys being fired for not being up-to-speed on 2020 cosmopolitan sensibilities, or anyone who says a single negative thing about BLM riots?

"Cancel Culture" is the practice of naming and shaming PUBLIC figures and organisations and so your comment is a wee bit off the mark. You can't cancel a subscription to an individual, a high school kid who makes an off-colour remark is not a product.

By linking the public disapprobation of people who make statements (such as that scooter-driving gentleman in Florida who yelled "White Power" or the angry young schoolboy who decided to stare down a native American who would dare to try to defuse his incipient argument with some agitators) with companies who are being boycotted for actively funding anti-LGBTQ lobbying groups (for instance) is an attempt by politicians, companies and media groups to apply a chilling effect to speech. People should be able to boycott those companies who attempt to impact their lives; celebrities are not owed our respect, nor politicians the money they steal from public coffers.

It is very much NOT limited to public figures and is pervasive in large companies. Individuals get effectively blackballed because of disagreeing with the mob

> It is very much NOT limited to public figures and is pervasive in large companies.

That is not cancel culture. That is something else. Cancel culture, by definition, requires something that can be cancelled. Equivocating the two issues is an attempt to make public figures, organisations, etc less accountable.

Whelp... Go ahead and check your definitions, because it absolutely applies to individuals in a private space

I often use "we" language in code reviews and technical discussions. Just because one person is writing the code does not mean it is their code. It's our code. We will have to understand and maintain it. We are all on the hook for it.

I've found that using this type of language can often side step the issue of personal feelings because it's not YOU who wrote something that could be made better but it's WE who wrote it and WE should work together to make it as good as it can be.

In a vacuum I suspect many developers would agree with this, but in practice clearly not as evidenced here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120311

See: https://www.gwern.net/Holy-wars

A holy war suggests a deliberate preference. Often though the preference looks like a convenient face-saving qualifier to excuse an inability to perform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com