Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway789256 | Hacker News Reader

I think my assertions stack up pretty well with the facts.

The names list hasn't been clearly established as racist. If you have 10 times the European names as you have Asian names, is it racist against Asians, or were there "funny" names in all groups?

The perception of racism is not necessarily racism. That is precisely the point that is being argued. The claim of white supremacy does not mean that an organization is white supremacist. Big claims need big evidence. I haven't seen it.

Minor slights happen. They are inevitable in daily life no matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation or other identity. If you use minor slights to create an uproar in the context of your job, you are a bad employee who should be fired. Tying minor slights to genocide is one way of creating an uproar.

Singer had power and seniority at Basecamp. He once linked to a Breitbart page. While I differ with Breitbart on most issues, I do not see that as prima facie evidence that Singer is white supremacist or racist.

Just because Singer is a white male with authority does not make him, by definition, a white supremacist or a racist.

And if the only cure for that kind of "white supremacy" is replacing all the white males with any power or authority with people of other identities, then I'm opposed to that "cure," because it is a racist and discriminatory cure based on false generalizations about genders and racial groups.

View on HN

Your assertion was that these people cannot accept race neutral, they’ll only accept anti racism.

With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation. Because they did perceive the list to be racist, it’s just not the case that they were taking issue with the idea of being race neutral.

Second, you are jumping to wild conclusions about what they were asking for. At no point did anyone say that “all white males with any power or authority” must be replaced. If that were true, it would stand to reason that they’d aim their ire at the entire leadership structure itself rather than on the one individual. Your blanket assertion may have some grounding in your personal experiences, but it is overly broad in this instance.

Finally, while the equivalence between minor slights and genocide has been made, that was not the reason why I brought it up. The reason why I mention minor slights is that, while they may be minor in isolation, when taken in context together they can reveal a pattern of behavior that is hard to explain to those on the outside, and thus is difficult to perceive to us as observers. In this instance it seemed that employees wanted to shave a forum to address this and were shut down.

> With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation.

I don't think we know their true motivation. Anyone can claim to perceive something as racist. We cannot control their sense of offense. The act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist.

But what advocates of critical race theory have found is that, by claiming that something is racist, they can bring pressure on their employers.

That is precisely what happened here. Basecamp is now under tremendous pressure. Plenty of ire has been focused on the co-founders as well as Singer. Singer has quit, though we don't know the facts of the case. Accusations of racism are fatal to one's career, whether or not they have a basis in fact.

Another word for "revealed pattern" is "narrative." Many narratives can be told about the same set of facts. And many of those narratives are deeply subjective, or driven by ideology.

I could take many minor actions by Jane Yang and others at Basecamp and interpret them as a power grab.

To be clear, I know that some people and companies do act in racist ways. Such behavior is illegal and should be punished. But the evidentiary bar to establish that is high. That bar has not yet been met here.

In this case, we have very serious accusations and very little evidence, evidence that can be interpreted in several ways. But Basecamp and Singer have already suffered serious consequences, and the claims have been aired publicly.

So they were able to create a scandal without going through the effort of proving anything.

You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post.

And this is the crux of the issue. Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not. Opponents reduce this down to a simple difference of opinion, but if you see that the world treats certain groups differently than others, it is not mere difference of opinion, there are real, tangible consequences that go along with that disagreement.

The thing that you get wrong, that so many people get wrong on all sides of this, is that the issue at hand here isn’t about whether Singer is himself a racist person. When people speak of “white supremacy” refers to a structural system within society that treats people differently on the basis of their race, in a hierarchy that places white people at the top. It’s not a matter of individual intent, but the culmination of ways that people act differently towards each other that nets out to place people in different positions within society.

I think it’s reasonable to disagree on how you go about remedying that situation, but the assertion that “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race” shouldn’t be that controversial of a statement.

> You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post.

The person(s) that attacked Singer used social justice activist techniques, claim of and demand for denouncing "white supremacy" in order to reduce a viewpoint opponents moral authority, where "white supremacy" uses the social justice unstated redefinition of the colloquial term to mean "policy or habitual behavior that could perpetrate outcomes not in alignment with social justice dogma".

This activist technique is a kafka trap with no good answer. Keeping that in mind its pretty clear where the accuser comes from.

As a side-note: a discussion/debate between viewpoint opponent break down if serious accusation are made without evidence, and a healthy discussion and work environment need to exclude such bad actors. Kudos to basecamp and coinbase for adopting policies that discourage such behavior.

Just to clear things up, do you agree or disagree with my previous statement that “ people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race”? Further that white people have historically been placed at the top of a hierarchy by society at large, above other groups?

If you agree with both of those statements, do you believe white peoples are still given a higher place in society? Do you believe that to no longer be the case?

I’ll limit this to the United States.

> Just to clear things up, do you agree or disagree with my previous statement that “ people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race”? Further that white people have historically been placed at the top of a hierarchy by society at large, above other groups?

You are asking a question positioned using very low-fidelity and poorly scoped social justice dogma.

With Nigerians topping educaction and income stats clearly low-fidelity race characteristics is not a sufficient predictor of outcome. Likewise, asian americans have the highest median income so being majority does not predict the best outcome.

In addition to this, official identity based government and company policies create asymmetry in official hiring as well as promotion policies that favor BIPOC and women.

What does seem like a great predictor is being born into a family-focused culture where kids education is extremely important. This is a commonality between sub-cultures that do well, and skin color is no great predictor for culture. Some of the sub-cultures that does the worst have high rates of single parenting, including sub-cultures of white culture, and single parenting is also a great predictor of lower household income.

I took it as a given that we could agree that there was an explicit system of racial hierarchy in the United States.

Call that social justice dogma if you want, but I’d consider it an objective fact.

Edit: because it seems to be unclear. The word “was” was in reference to the past. It’s an objective fact that there _was_ an explicit system of racial hierarchy in the United States.

> I took it as a given that we could agree that there was an explicit system of racial hierarchy in the United States.

When you think it's explicit instead of implicit you are in a minority even amongst social justice adherents. Social justice started focusing on "implicit" bias and racism because the instances of explicit racism in the 2000s were not numerous enough to support its activist objective of tearing down the system and replacing it.

The whole concept of "systemic oppression" is based around this realization, where social justice argue that capitalism fool people into being happy and content so that they don't oppose an implicitly oppressive system that traps them in a false reality.

> Call that social justice dogma if you want, but I’d consider it an objective fact.

The examples in my previous message show that it's neither descriptive nor factual.

Social justice prescribe a totalizing worldview that use an every-increasing set of politically motivated identity groups to further an activist objective. The objective is to tear down the system and the promise is a utopia once everyone agrees with the utopic vision.

You’re arguing against a straw man, or at best an extreme minority viewpoint.

Given the history of the United States, wherein there existed both legal and extralegal forms of racial discrimination, the primary assertion is that while the obvious forms of racial discrimination have been abolished, there continue be forms of systematic racial discrimination. These people assert that this is a bad thing and it should be corrected. This is not about bringing about a utopia, but about righting a wrong.

None of this is “totalizing”. Indeed, even in the past, during slavery and Jim Crow, you had examples of successful black people and other POC (Web Debois, Fredrick Douglass). The argument is simply that POC face barriers that white people simply don’t face, not that those barriers are impossible to overcome.

Social justice is totalizing as an ideology, I was not referring to past racial discrimination.

In social justice activism "racism" is redefined to mean "inequitable outcomes". So of cause with this change of definition you can say the "group" experience racism when you really just mean that one group does better than another. DEI is the prescribed social justice solution, ignoring how the equity doctrine has destroyed every society it touched.

If you use the colloqial definition of racism then affirmative action, diversity quotas, DEI preferential hiring&promotion are all widespread policies that discriminate against white people based upon their race. DEI programs also use negative racial profiling and stereotyping. The claim that white people do not experience racism is therefore objectively wrong.

So social justice is arguing for explicit racist policies to fix "implicit racism", which really means "equitable outcomes"

I have to reiterate that you are arguing against a straw man.

The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

DEI is about what _explains_ the inequitable outcomes.

Given the history of western societies and the United States in particular, it is reasonable to assert that there should be a burden of proof to show that there are no longer racial privileges rather than the converse. Especially when the same hierarchy is displayed when looking at patterns of racial inequalities today. Further, there is significant scholarship that draws direct lines between things like redlining, housing convenants, and sentencing disparities and those same racial inequalities.

There are really only two classes of descriptions that can explain such disparities.

1. All people are inherently equally capable regardless of racial categorization, the disparities we observe at due to barriers placed in front of disadvantaged groups.

2. Some groups are more capable of others, either due to biological or cultural factors.

2 has played out throughout the history of European colonization in different forms, both as a “scientific” practice and through cultural chauvinism. Both are general regarded as white supremacy, because that’s a fairly appropriate label.

One place I do agree with you however is here: “The claim that white people don’t experience racism is objectively wrong”

The social justice side actually agrees with you and has just started an unhelpful fight over semantics. Whether you want to call is “racism” or “prejudice” it’s not like there is anything special about white people that makes it impossible to discrimination against them. That does differ, though, from structural level discrimination.

> The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

The second term of the social justice prescribed D(iversity)E(quity)I(nclusion) solution, equity, literally means redistribution of outcomes.

> The social justice side actually agrees with you and has just started an unhelpful fight over semantics. Whether you want to call is “racism” or “prejudice” it’s not like there is anything special about white people that makes it impossible to discrimination against them. That does differ, though, from structural level discrimination.

How are DEI programs, affirmative action and diversity quotas for hiring&promotion not structural level discrimination? These are policies and laws pushed by the government and corporations.

> The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

> DEI is about what _explains_ the inequitable outcomes.

There are more than 3 possible explanations. The most likely one is that your categories, race, are not well fitted to what you are trying to explain. For instance, Nigerians do incredibly well and are considered black and most of them came here not rich.

You are also comparing over timeframes that don't make sense. The america of today is not even comprised of the same populations, and the people that lived these injustices died a looong time ago. As recent as in 1950 89.3% were white with most of the remainder black. Today 60% white, 18.5% hispanic, 12.5% black, 5.8% Asian, 2.3% multirace, and 0.9% other.

Most wealth and status is also currently not gained through inheritance. Most get high status through education and wealth through work. This shows how bad it is that social justice activists push racial discrimination where status and wealth is currently gained through individual merit.

> You are comparing over timeframes that don't make sense. The america of today is not even comprised of the same populations, and the people that lived these injustices died a looong time ago.

The children that integrated schools in the south are still very much alive, and aren’t even that old [1].

“Hispanic” wasn’t even a category in the census until 1970 (they were here, they just weren’t counted). [2] While there has been significant Asian and Latin American immigration in the interim, the stats you cite aren’t comparable due to differences in collection criteria.

> How are DEI programs, affirmative action and diversity quotas for hiring&promotion not structural level discrimination? These are policies and laws pushed by the government and corporations.

The government isn’t allowed to have racial quotas [3]. But I would cede that you make an important point here, that the proposed remedy mirrors the problem that is being brought up. I am not here to argue the virtues of such programs. There is a difference between identifying that a problem exists and agreeing with a proposed solution. My understanding is that you don’t agree that there is a problem, and that is the extent of my concern.

> Most wealth and status is also currently not gained through inheritance. Most get high status through education and wealth through work. This shows how bad it is that social justice activists push racial discrimination where status and wealth is currently gained.

This is a red herring, no one is arguing against education and work. Conservatives just want people to focus on those things in lieu of addressing racial discrimination. Also, treating inheritance as though it’s insignificant is a bit odd… 35 to 45 percent[4] may not be a majority, but it’s hugely significant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges?wprov=sfti1

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/03/03/census-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v...

[4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/01... "Inheritance Matters. An estimated 35 to 45 percent of wealth is inherited rather than self-made"

> The children that integrated schools in the south are still very much alive, and aren’t even that old [1].

The supreme court ruling that ended school segregation in public education was in 1954. On the other hand the people classified as white as well as asian experience racial discrimination by DEI education and company initiatives right here right now.

> “Hispanic” wasn’t even a category in the census until 1970 (they were here, they just weren’t counted). [2] While there has been significant Asian and Latin American immigration in the interim, the stats you cite aren’t comparable due to differences in collection criteria.

This is as far as I can tell an admittance that you are making comparisons over timescales that does not make any sense.

> This is a red herring, no one is arguing against education and work. Conservatives just want people to focus on those things in lieu of addressing racial discrimination. Also, treating inheritance as though it’s insignificant is a bit odd… 35 to 45 percent[4] may not be a majority, but it’s hugely significant.

The social justice prescribed DEI solution argues for racial discrimination in access to education and promition&hiring. So the outcome-focused thinking of activists are pushing racial discrimination which is objectively not a way to reduce racism.

For the majority that get wealth through educational and work merit being racially discriminated against in those spheres cause harm. Even for people with inherited wealth, how many would still have any wealth if they weren't also successful at education and work?

> Even for people with inherited wealth, how many would still have any wealth if they weren't also successful at education and work?

As long as they have basic financial literacy around how to invest, education and work would both be unnecessary. It would be extremely easy to maintain their wealth.

> This is as far as I can tell an admittance that you are making comparisons over timescales that does not make any sense.

“Census data on race isn’t comparable over long time scale because of major methodological updates to data collection” => your statement is a huge logical leap.

> The supreme court ruling that ended school segregation in public education was in 1954. On the other hand the people classified as white as well as asian experience racial discrimination by DEI education and company initiatives right here right now.

And you are aware that school segregation did not, in fact, end in 1954, as I’m sure you read the article I posted on ruby bridges. It took decades to integrate schools, and in many ways they never were because of the way school district boundaries align with segregated housing.

DEI initiatives rarely advance strict racial quotas or thumb on the scale affirmative action policies. Indeed, the whole impetus for this discussion, basecamp, was an instance where people were bothered by specific behaviors they felt were discriminatory. As I’ve stated multiple times, I take no issue with you disagreeing with a specific set of policies pushed by DEI initiatives, but that is different from denying the existence of racial discrimination against BIPOC. The existence of policies that discriminate against one group does not preclude the existence of discrimination against another.

> As I’ve stated multiple times, I take no issue with you disagreeing with a specific set of policies pushed by DEI initiatives, but that is different from denying the existence of racial discrimination against BIPOC.

You are arguing that somehow implicit racism is stronger than explicit racism the social justice DEI solution furthers.

You also argue that on whole systemic racism through policy and habitual behavior benefit the whites that experience explicit systemic discrimination furthered by widespread DEI policies.

This is just not a very strong claim.

> As long as they have basic financial literacy around how to invest, education and work would both be unnecessary. It would be extremely easy to maintain their wealth.

The median pre-tax median inheritance is according to Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) $69,000 [1] (the average was $707,291, indicating a small percentage get a much higher inheritance). So 50% of people that inherit get $69k or less, which is not amount that sets you up to live off that asset.

Any anticipated inheritance is also commonly reduced by estate taxes, attorney’s fees, funeral expenses, probate costs, and paying off the deceased’s debts. Having to share the remaining money with siblings, grandchildren, charities, and any other individuals or organizations in a parent’s will could further reduce a child’s take. And a parent who has remarried might leave assets to a new spouse, diminishing or eliminating what children expected to receive.

> DEI initiatives rarely advance strict racial quotas or thumb on the scale affirmative action policies.

This is not accurate. DEI initiatives seeks to increase diversity in hiring by changing the hiring criteria to hire more of favored identities (inclusion) while promoting favored identities to achieve equal outcome (equity).

But DEI does not apply positively to black viewpoint opponents of social justice such as libertarians and conservatives. They are by social justice seen as not exhibiting an "authentic black lived experience". This activism is a terrible denial of individuality based upon race.

[1] https://www.newretirement.com/retirement/average-inheritance...

“> As I’ve stated multiple times, I take no issue with you disagreeing with a specific set of policies pushed by DEI initiatives, but that is different from denying the existence of racial discrimination against BIPOC.

You are arguing that somehow implicit racism is stronger than explicit racism the social justice DEI solution furthers.”

An honest rewriting of my quoted text using your terminology would be something more like this: “It would be reasonable to say that the explicitly racist policies advocated by DEI as a remedy are not a proper solution to the problem, but that is different than claiming that implicit racism doesn’t exist”

And yet you’re here claiming that I argue the opposite. At this point you are just arguing in bad faith.

To restate, As clearly as is possible. If you want to assert “while structural racism exists, the policies prescriptions advanced by overzealous and self aggrandizing DEI groups cross the line” I’m happy to cede the debate.

> But DEI does not apply positively to black viewpoint opponents of social justice such as libertarians and conservatives. They are by social justice seen as not exhibiting an "authentic black lived experience". This activism is a terrible denial of individuality based upon race.

You can easily accept that they have a viewpoint while also noting that the vast majority of black people don't identify as libertarian nor as conservatives. Why do you think that a minority should be able to invalidate the majority’s opinion? Because it agrees with your viewpoint?

> The median pre-tax median inheritance is according to Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) $69,000 [1] (the average was $707,291, indicating a small percentage get a much higher inheritance). So 50% of people that inherit get $69k or less, which is not amount that sets you up to live off that asset.

The median inheritor doesn’t become wealthy through inheritance, sure, but they also don’t become wealthy through work & education either. Wealth is a heavily skewed distribution, so it makes little sense to talk about the median when 10% of the country owns something like 3/4th of the wealth. Assuming we are talking about someone who receives a non trivial amount of wealth through inheritance (ie enough for them to be actually wealthy, not 67k) then it is easy to maintain that wealth without work.

> An honest rewriting of my quoted text using your terminology would be something more like this: “It would be reasonable to say that the explicitly racist policies advocated by DEI as a remedy are not a proper solution to the problem, but that is different than claiming that implicit racism doesn’t exist”

Systemic racism just means inequitable outcomes, implicit racism is an "invisible" enemy invented to justify an equity agenda not supported by explicit racism, so I do not see how one can embrace this without embracing DEI as a solution. If social justice used the colloquial definition of racism, which it doesn't, it would be ridiculous to claim that someone is inevitably and exclusively racist because they are white.

I am not saying we shouldn't iterate using the liberal system where corruption happens. However, a committee prescribing outcomes based upon an every-expanding set of politically motivated identity categories is way more prone to corruption because the power is unchecked. A core principle of the liberal system is to check power as it assumed people are and will be imperfect.

> You can easily accept that they have a viewpoint while also noting that the vast majority of black people don't identify as libertarian nor as conservatives. Why do you think that a minority should be able to invalidate the majority’s opinion? Because it agrees with your viewpoint?

Because telling someone that they don't have "an authentic black lived experience" if it doesn't fit an activist mold is both racist and harmful to people listening to each other to find better solutions. It is simply bad process to prescribe a solution while denying any negative feedback, but that is exactly what social justice and DEI does.

> The median inheritor doesn’t become wealthy through inheritance, sure, but they also don’t become wealthy through work & education either. Wealth is a heavily skewed distribution, so it makes little sense to talk about the median when 10% of the country owns something like 3/4th of the wealth. Assuming we are talking about someone who receives a non trivial amount of wealth through inheritance (ie enough for them to be actually wealthy, not 67k) then it is easy to maintain that wealth without work.

I do agree that concentration of wealth is an issue, covid in particular has transferred almost 4 trillion from the middle class to the oligarchs. That said, historically countries that adopted the equity agenda have not fared any better.

However, if only a percentage around 10% rely on inheritance for status&wealth while the rest rely on education and work then forcing equal outcomes through racist policies in education as well as hiring&promotion are gross miscarriages of justice.

> Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not.

I think you are right that that belief shapes how we interpret these issues. By racism as a structural problem, I assume you mean this:

> “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race”

Society is not an actor. It is a collection of people, and the people are actors. Some of them are racist, and some are not.

I do not believe that every situation is permeated with structural racism that must be corrected, but I suspect that people who believe in structural racism tend to find it everywhere and use it to justify the changes they propose.

I don't assume that they had malicious intent. But I do think that they perceive situations through a distorted lens, which often leads to behavior that is harmful to the organizations where they work.

I think that Basecamp and Singer and most organizations and individuals deserve an assumption of innocence.

Racism has to be proven. Accusations must be backed up with evidence. And the burden of evidence is on the accusers. I think critical race theorists start with the assumption that racism is shaping the interaction.

It is not enough to say that structural racism exists and therefore we should believe that it shaped the behavior of people at Basecamp. You have to prove it case by case. Simply claiming structural racism does not justify enormous change.

Statistically, people of different races experience different outcomes in the US on average. But there is a huge standard deviation in those outcomes by race or gender; that is, any given individual may be doing relatively well or poorly relative to the average.

And I think that applying assertions about society and societal ills to individuals, their actions and specific situations is often misguided, because they may deviate wildly from the average.

But that is exactly what critical race theorists tend to do. They treat individuals as representatives of a larger social trend. A male represents the patriarchy. A Caucasian represents white supremacy.

But attacking an individual to remedy a larger statistical discrepancy is in itself a form of injustice. Especially when we diagnose the supposed cause of that discrepancy with vagueness, as a culmination of ways that society acts.

That is not enough to convince me of the claims being made against Singer and Basecamp, or of the rightness of the Basecamp employees in rebellion.

You’ve made it clear that there is no evidence that can be brought forward that would get you to accept that there exists diffuse but consistent behavior that creates structural hierarchies within society.

It would appear then, that we are at an impasse.

> there exists diffuse but consistent behavior

I think that is possible and that one could prove it statistically.

I do not think that, just because such behavior can be shown to exist on average, that is necessarily exists in specific situations. If you want to apply an anti-racist remedy in a specific situation, you should have to prove racism in that situation.

And I think that the remedies to specific situations will differ a great deal, depending on unique variables. That is, if a person proposes a remedy, they should show how it will fix the specific problem.

I do not agree with one-size-fits-all remedies that try to fix a social ill by turning a specific company on its head without factual evidence of racism in that company.

The company turned itself on its head by shutting down all discussion on the topic.

I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone was calling for singers job before nor during the meeting. All that happened was that a bunch of employees formed a committee that brought a bunch of issues to the fore. They took issue with singers behavior, and the company responded with “cease all of this discussion or take a buyout” and so they took the buyout.

All this amounted to the company backing up a senior employees behavior reflexively at the expense of lower level employees objections.

> The company turned itself on its head by shutting down all discussion on the topic.

Maybe. Or maybe the company was already turned on its head due to the internal conversation. Such a radical reaction from the founders suggests to me that this was the case.

> I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone was calling for singers job before nor during the meeting.

Accusing someone of racism or white supremacy is effectively calling for them to resign or be fired.

> All that happened was that a bunch of employees formed a committee that brought a bunch of issues to the fore.

Right, but again, we don't know if those issues were valid or not. The "funny names" list is not nearly as damning as they seem to think. Given how much information has leaked to the media, I would assume that the strongest evidence they have of racism would already be public. And I have not seen strong evidence.

> All this amounted to the company backing up a senior employees behavior reflexively at the expense of lower level employees objections.

If "backing up a senior employee's behavior" means allowing him to disagree with others about whether his behavior is racist, especially in the absence of evidence that it is racist, then I think they were right to back him up.

Singer's resignation resulted from the show trial of accusations and media leaks, which is a well known playbook for advocates of social change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com