---
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28539299.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, such as race and gender flamewar. I realize it's not always easy to post about this topics without being inflammatory, but the subthread we got here is an example of exactly what we don't want on HN, and this was pretty predictable from the way your comment ratcheted up the inflammation.
I think this is an instructive case - if you look at the parent subthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28539299) without this flamewar, it's clear that it's much better. Not that every comment is good or flamebait-free, but the discussion is more substantive and (not coincidentally) on topic.
This thread needs a lot more attention on it. Not only does it demonstrate how racist and sexist this community is, it shows nicely how complicit you personally are in allowing this to happen.
Compare your response to this racist comment to this:
If you think this is evidence of ideological bias, that's a misinterpretation—you're drawing a signal from the data (or rather, from one random observation) that doesn't exist. This is a classic cognitive bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor..., https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Since mods get this sort of attack nearly every day for years, you can understand that after a while we get a little desensitized to it—especially because the attacks are so contradictory. The other side thinks that we're secretly stewarding HN in your favor. Lots of examples here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 and I could give you hundreds more.
I think your characterization of this community is wildly inaccurate, for similar reasons. Yes, HN gets comments of all sorts—to expect anything else from an open internet community with millions of members is unrealistic. To act like the worst of the comments, or the ones that you happen to disagree with the most, characterize the community as a whole is a big non sequitur, driven by the same cognitive biases (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
That said, you're right that I missed something- I missed the pattern of behavior in the GP's comment history. That was a mistake.
If anyone doubts this, take a scroll through here:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Even, for the sake of argument, assuming that that is true it doesn't prove the ideological moderation bias you are claiming, it is consistent with HN being one of the few sites which does not actively suppress such content and those who post it for ideological reasons.
Tangentially, this reminds me that HN needs a dedicated meta-forum and a policy of moving meta-commentary that is off-topic out of other threads and into the meta-forum.
People can even predict the racist reactions this "community" will have:
At least a white male stands a good chance of not being born into a high crime area they have virtually no chance of escaping.
We suck at diagnosing and solving the real problems.
white women > black women > white men > black men
(not sure where all the other racial groups fall).
So a simplistic calculation like "women are less privileged and black people are less privileged therefor we should help black women the most when it comes to college admissions" does not address the real world disparities that exist.
Trust me, it's happening.
Mine is as follows. Historically, the colonization was the domain of countries with access to sea, especially a long coast line - starting with Vikings. Among European countries, the colonization was done mainly by the Brits, Spain, Portugal, France, the predecessors of the modern Netherlands and Belgium.
Other European countries either didn't have access to sea, or had it but for various reasons weren't interested in colonization - for example because they were focused on land wars with their neighbors. You won't find many German or Austrian colonies. And you can talk to the Swiss how white people are guilty of colonialism, but you won't find any understanding there. Some with the whole Eastern Europe.
I understand this simplistic point of view ("white people invaded the whole world") seems attractive to some, but it's false, unjust and racist. If you say, "Several European countries colonized a significant portion of the world" - this is accurate, true, and definitely not racist. But it seems people don't care about facts or being precise anymore: it's all about emotion and fitting one's limited set of views.
===
EDIT: To people who flag and downvote: I'm a very open-minded person. I don't want to live in my bubble. So please, talk to me. Explain why I'm wrong - or at least why you disagree. HN is a discussion forum, let's use this opportunity to actually transmit some useful information. To me, downvoting and flagging says, "I disagree but I can't find any counter-arguments".
It is okay to be who you are. It doesn't matter your race or nationality, your sex or gender or creed. It's okay to be white. It's okay to be black. It's okay to be Asian. It's okay to be First Nations, Native, Indigenous. It's okay to be male or female or intersexed or trans. It's okay to be Catholic or Protestant or Sunni or Shia or Jewish or Orthodox or Baha'i or Zoroastrian or Buddhist or Hindu or Taoist or Shinto or any other creed.
For all people everywhere, it is emphatically okay to exist.
If you disagree with that, then I think you need to re-examine who is engaging in supremacist politics.
Some people took this as a sign that an evil fifth column was going around trying to win an invisible cultural battle by putting up signs that had no racist content but that implied that someone around town would be willing to put up a racist sign if they had had the chance and the chutzpah.
Other people took this as a sign that the evil first through fourth columns were in such active pursuit of dissenters that they would get mad on Twitter and take down meticulously inkjetted pieces of A4 paper if they so much as implied that dissent was an option.
Few reasonable people took this as a sign that it was, literally, not "OK" to be a white person (what does that even mean? if it's not okay how are they supposed to stop?), but because taking down a sign can be taken to mean that the janitor disagrees with what those cultural mercenaries at Kinko's printed on it, that take got passed around a lot.
So for some people the message of that poster was infuriating. You can't openly disagree with the literal meaning, but on the other hand, many people do it internally. They believe that white people as the descendants of slave owners should inherit the collective guilt of their great forefathers (even if it was a family of a third wave of immigrants from Europe that never owned any slaves). The very fact we are even discussing that is telling in itself.
Not everything has to be black and white and divisive.
No one is seriously arguing that devoid on the context and who pushes that specific phrasing, that it's "not ok to be white"
You have to intentionally disingenuous to seriously believe that.
Which was clearly the goal of this experiment, to show how quickly and vehemently people over react to anything that seems to deviate slightly from their personal ideology, no matter how slight.
The thing is, you have to see who is using and spreading that message. When it's alt-right people, you can assume malicious intent when they use it.
If someone who is not clearly alt-right says it, I wouldn't even think twice as that's literally meaningless, but you have to acknowledge how they are trying to use it as a dogwhistle
Well, looks like they were very successful then.
Second, who is saying "white males" are the root of all problems? I mean, it's objectively true since we've predominately been in positions of power (European & new world) for the greater part of history. That said, I'm sure women can mess things up equally as bad if they were in the same positions of power.
Third, there's still an under-representation of women in STEM. Whether that's because a chicken-and-egg problem with visibility (or that women, on average, just don't want those jobs) is yet to be seen.
So... you then. You are an example of who is saying what you are saying.
Excuse me? That's ridiculously eurocentric and only contributes to "visibility problems" you seem to care about. It may have been somewhat true for a few hundred years, but there are many cultures that stood millenia without any european influence whatsoever. And in the very near future, asian countries will surpass the west in terms of influence, as it has been for a long time.
All of humanity has the capacity to both oppress and murder en masse.
Wow, you certainly have a shallow view of history.
> Third, there's still an under-representation of women in STEM.
And there is an under representation of men on college campuses.
Why is one of those worth worrying about and not the other? Or are both cause for serious concern?
All this obsession with race is just a way for the elites to urn attention away from actual solutions which would hurt their profits.
In the United State our history makes it absolutely about race too. The legacy of slavery and racial segregation didn't magically disappear in 1965. The limited amount I know about Canadian history is that something similar could be said about the treatment of First Nations.
If you agree the US has a history of slavery and racial segregation, of course it will still offer privileges to white people because that's historically how the system was setup. When do you think that stopped affecting black people?
You're right, there's no insult intended when people say that. Apparently whiteys have thin skin too!