Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsanheim | Hacker News Reader

Congratulations, you have an opportunity to experience what it feels like to work in tech as a person of color, or a woman, or any of the many other underrepresented groups in tech. Only those people experience every day at almost all companies, and can't escape it by leaving their existing company.

Maybe see it as a chance to learn and grow instead of something to resent and run from?

View on HN

As a URM in tech, that's not my own experience. There's rarely attention drawn to the fact that I'm a minority - and I like it that way. Heterogeneity is tough with this: some individuals like and benefit from initiatives that focus on their minority status, while others don't. No group is a monolith - individuals have different needs - not to mention that experiences can differ significantly, too.

I think there's a very fine balance to strike where you want programs to reach the people who benefit -- and certainly leaders and co-workers who need to be more inclusive -- without making those you're trying to help feel uncomfortable by having it so front and center that those who'd like to sit out can't. It's a tough balance, and I've seen companies both go too far and not far enough.

All this is to say I can imagine a situation where OP's environment really is making them more uncomfortable than what many (most?) URM's experience in the work place. Can't say for sure without knowing specifics, of course. It just isn't always a case of "more is better."

I was living MLK’s dream of living in perfect racial harmony despite the fact that I was a minority and they took that away from me.

It might be forgivable if the studies showed that this hyper focus on race at work actually reduced racism, but it doesn’t. It’s just pure evil.

My understanding of the initial comment and why I +1 it was that I thought it was focused on the observation that this person has been in a situation in which they are a minority, are realizing they are one and are thinking about things that they wouldn't think about before and hoping that this experience helps build empathy and better understanding of the day to day life as a URM.

The situation the person is in isn't great and leaving sounds worth doing but I didn't think that was what the response was about though I can see how the implication to not run away could be interpreted in a different way

This is of course the worst take. When I was in 4th grade we had to read a short story about a society that enforced sameness, it wasn’t the giver where they did it genetically, rather if you were smart they’d fix headphones to your ears that played a loud obnoxious noise so you couldn’t think, if you were tall or athletic they crippled you, basically they brought everyone down to the same bad level...

That’s the society you’re trying to build.

ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.

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

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113264/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

2001: Most ridiculous thing I ever read.

2021: Uh...guys...?

Sounds about right.

I imagine the downvotes are mainly because the comparison seems pretty off base, regardless of whether one agrees with the good or bad of the original post.

Comparing "you are now in a situation where you may have an opportunity to empathise with difficulties others have had" to "you are trying to build a society where more fortunate people are harmed in the name of sameness" doesn't resonate at all.

You are exactly right. The funny thing is that the short story in question, Harrison Bergeron, was meant as a satire of right-wing fears of slippery slopes toward sameness. It's no coincidence that the comparison is made here; the comparison is exactly what Kurt Vonnegut was making fun of when he wrote the story.

Most critiques of the story entirely disagree with your interpretation. I couldn’t find anything specific about how the author meant it to be understood but it appears that most understand it as I interpreted it when I was 9 years old.

Ah, the comparison is coming from the fact that the GP is describing a bad situation he’s in and the response is essentially “you deserve it” and “think of the starving children in Africa”. My point is that sort of thinking creates a less humane society.

Right, I don't really agree with your interpretation, though I can understand how you might read it that way. As I wrote above, I read it as "take this as a learning opportunity to empathise with others", which I would think leads to a _more_ humane society.

Telling someone how to "empathize" is probably the most condescending thing that "progressives" tell others to do.

Somehow it only comes out when the person preaching it feels extreme pity for the person in need of "empathy" and most importantly the preacher is the only one who really understands how to give that empathy, no one else is able to reach their level of enlightenment. Of course this creates a problem when two such preachers are in the same room...

Additionally, most of the time the pitied person doesn't want your pity or empathy they just want to live their life and are usually pretty happy until you come along and start telling them they need empathy and how bad their life really is.

I am on the other side of this debate, and I have plenty of downvotes from my comments in this thread without counter arguments. That's HN in a nutshell. My advice to you is to get over it.

I’m not complaining about the downvotes, but I’d like to understand what the disagreement is. I’m sorry that people do that. I generally will respond if I disagree instead of downvoting. I’ll take a look at your comment history and see if I have time to address it.

ETA: I’ve looked over your comments, aside from one that appears to be sarcastic everything you say has a response to it. I added my own comment to one of them as well. I think resigning ourselves to Twitter-like flame wars without actually talking things out isn’t very hn like at all.

It's not your fault, and besides, I received a more recent reply to one. These are heated topics that likely won't be resolved on HN comments sections.

Edit: I read your edit. It appears that in your mind, comments that disagree with you resemble a Twitter flame war, and comments agreeing with you are well articulated and thoughtful. In reality, your comments are just as negative and one-sided as the others you disparage.

> Edit: I read your edit. It appears that in your mind, comments that disagree with you resemble a Twitter flame war, and comments agreeing with you are well articulated and thoughtful. In reality, your comments are just as negative and one-sided as the others you disparage.

Just the opposite, I welcome disagreement. I just don’t like being attacked without knowing why.

Not sure who downvoted you, but the fact that you characterize a downvote as an "attack" gets to the core of the problem. Namely, you seem to think even the most minor form of disagreement (a downvote) makes you some sort of victim.

Maybe we could call it a “small attack” or even a “micro-attack”... hey how about.... a micro-aggression.

I kid but obviously a downvote is a negative response to something I wrote, but without the responsibility of actually backing up why they’re having that negative response. I’m kinda lost as to why we’re even having this discussion, you appear upset that I wanted to hear why people were downvoting me. Why does that upset you?

+1. Couldn't have put this any better

Reply on news.ycombinator.com