Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

I remember many years ago when colour schemes/UI themes were still called "skins", and forum discussions about them often yielded amusing racist-if-taken-out-of-context sentences like "do you like white or black skin" and "I have dark skin, but I prefer the white skin." Not a single person was offended or outraged, everyone saw the racial associations but clearly understood the context and was more amused than anything else.

I'm of mixed opinion whether people were actually more intelligent or level-headed back then, or whether the current "ultra-PC/SJW-ism" trend actually started as a joke that got taken too far and adopted as truth by the gullible.

View on HN

I have no knowledge of the example situation you provided (I don’t recall any such jokes about software skins), but consider the possibility that in some cases where “back in the day we did it and no one was offended” it was in fact the case that people who were offended weren’t welcome or weren’t able to voice their opinions.

I think they're talking about forums, where most phpbb forums back then offered a theme selector to the user, with 'dark' and 'light' being some common names.

I’m very familiar with skins, Winamp skins being the archetypal example for me. I meant that I don’t remember any such jokes deliberately conflating software skins and human skin tone.

If you would actually like to know the history of the current trend, read Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay

> whether the current "ultra-PC/SJW-ism" trend actually started as a joke that got taken too far and adopted as truth by the gullible

It started with a few German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School in the interwar period.

> Deep SJW lore

I think you're actually correct, although the roots go back further. People don't understand the historical academic context of modern intolerance.

Jokes that evoke racist hatred are not good, though. You don't actually know that NOBODY - literally you said that not a single person - was offended.

Also, so what if someone was offended? Isn't that mostly irrelevant to this debate? The goal isn't to stop people from offending others, the goal of changing our speech is to reduce the unknown harm that words can do re: normalization of hatred of minorities. The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny and do in fact have a potential to cause real harm in the world.

I would posit that unchecked hatred towards minorities online for decades is one of the reasons we are in this 'mess' of language today.

> The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny

That's an opinion, and it's not a supportable opinion, because we don't really know much about the jokes. Parent's comment wasn't intended to convey the material faithfully-- just a bare description. We don't know the exact wording, the delivery, the timing, or any other context. Maybe they were lame (another opionion), but it's also possible that I (or even you) would have gotten a chuckle out it.

Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. But if you assume the worst of people, you're certainly more likely to get it in return.

> Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred.

Yes, there is. This is a very well-researched topic.

https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-co...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107...

etc.

Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.

Yes I think that one can be dismissed.

I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

> A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis

My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too.

> a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to. If it's in relation to psychology experimental methods, then I believe you're incorrect. Methods that involve actively deceiving subjects would be rejected by ethics boards (at least, it would in the UK). On top of that, there are many papers that do not use observations of human behaviour, and so would not find use in lying to them - for example, many neuropsychology papers discuss the physical makeup of body parts.

Psychology has been around for a long time, and some psychology results have deeply influenced society. Some of these papers cover the placebo effect, and various mental health conditions. If you are dismissing all psychology papers, do you also reject these influential papers?

I'm sorry if this reply is a bit full-on, but dismissing a claim's provided evidence by dismissing an entire academic field seems a bit extreme to me.

> I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed.

> I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to

That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment.

> Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.

> The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti-homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti-gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes.

So, let me rephrase that

> after hearing jokes featuring homosexuals, the anti-homosexuals (however those where determined and chosen for the study) where anti-homosexual. The not-anti-homosexuals where not anti-homosexual ater hearing jokes featuring homosexuals

If anything, that link disproves your own point.

That doesn't disprove my point at all.

How excactly? The anti-homosexual people apparently did not change, while the normal people also did not change. The study thus proofed that the presence of the jokes is moot, no?

I'd like everyone to stop speaking and stop writing anytthing because it MIGHT offend someone. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com