Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

I find it confusing that people fail to to see the obvious switcharoo. It used to be unacceptable to be queer, non-white, non-Christian, non-male and it was OK to mock people for those traits. Now, it's all backwards, and it's OK to be queer, non-white, non-Christian etc. What is no longer OK is mocking people for these traits.

So, now the people who are getting the pointy end of the stick are the people who used to do the poking. I for one prefer the new paradigm to the old.

The anti-cancel-culture people make it sound like they are being horribly oppressed. But for what? The color of their skin? Their gender or sexuality? No, simply for the dumb words they insist on uttering. Say what you what, when you want, to whomever you want, but don't tell me you realistically expect there to be no consequences.

View on HN

People do mock other people for being Christian or for a political belief. Nothing has changed but the bullies are now using the power of social media and the press to amply that bullying. The bullying continues to employers or schools, groups, friends.

Same as it ever was.

It's certainly not the same as it ever was. I think you're missing the distinction between "punching up" and "punching down". Punching up - taking aim at dominant power structures - is a necessary part of social advancement. Punching down is just cruel. Punching down used to be encouraged and celebrated, now it isn't, and some people are mad that they can't get away with it any longer.

Are you sure it's not celebrated? The poor rural folks often are a target. Christains.. anti-vaxxers.

What has changed is you are part of the group punching down but you think you are punching up.

It always happens this way. That other group is always: wrong, dangerous, not like us and any action against them is justified.

Seen it, heard it before. The interesting part is when the groups switch and people still think they are an underdog.

> The anti-cancel-culture people make it sound like they are being horribly oppressed. But for what? The color of their skin?

At work last week, our "diversity and equity" team announced that our company is "obviously" not diverse enough.

This is a company in the US with employees across North America and Europe, with some employees in South America, Australia, India, and even Africa, and not just South Africa, either.

The company does have more employees in Europe and North America than elsewhere, and those employees share one thing in common: skin color. They do not share a nationality, a language, a cuisine, or a mindset.

The only possible interpretation of the D&I&E officer is that there is too much white skin at our company.

Is that horrible oppression? No, but it is racist and prejudiced AF and I would 100% lose my job of I said a single word.

Skin color is one of the characteristics that influences our lived experience, and a lot of companies are seeking a diversity of experiences in their staff and leadership. They may look around and feel like they have a significant diversity of backgrounds and experiences, but not in one particular and very important way. So they want to correct this.

I'll readily concede that many companies do this for image reasons alone, though I'm sure some do it out of a genuine belief that diversity can lead to better business outcomes, or create a more desirable workplace for attracting new talent. But in the end, this is the decision of a private company and they are not being coerced to make these decisions by any authority, nor does it sound like they are breaking any laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com