Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbrueck | Hacker News Reader

Not disputing your bad experiences, but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone? :)

Speaking of 2 things being true at once, what's amazing about BBSs/USENET/IRC/etc. especially in the early years was that they had:

- online discussions where a lot of things just didn't matter. Race, gender, etc. just didn't matter. You got judged on the merit of your ideas, not what you looked like, not what you sounded like. It wasn't white people and black people talking together. It was just people. Genuine friendships developed between people that otherwise probably would have never connected because of societal barriers.

- online discussions where people were insanely cruel. Prior to getting online, I thought I understood how mean people could be. Boy was I wrong. It was a real learning experience to be on the receiving end of vile hatred, bigotry, insults, just... meanness. There are interests I walked away from because the toxicity of the community was too much to deal with.

View on HN

I can't speak to not being white, but I can speak to being female and gay in those spaces. I'm a 3rd generation geek/techie/hacker and the hostility really ramped up when I hit puberty. 8 year old me was treated decently: I got a lot of shit for asking stupid questions and me + my intelligence was insulted regularly (since most people didn't know I was a child), but the rape threats and constant sexual comments starting when I was about 11/12 and had the audacity to let people know I was a girl were terrifying. There was also a clear difference in how I was treated when people knew I was female versus when they were assuming I was male. By the time I was 18 and considering what to do with my life, CS and programming weren't options to me because I didn't want to put up with that crap for the rest of my life.

As a straight white dude, yeah there were a lot of nerd spaces with white dudes that imagined they were surrounded by other white dudes and some of them felt no need to be inclusive. But I wouldn't judge any profession too deeply solely by the behavior of teenagers who express interest in that profession. They're going to act like teenagers no matter which profession. Find a big enough young hacker space and you'll be able to find the more mature subgroups within.

I know for a fact a lot of the people participating in these communities were fully adults, and the age of the people being racist does little to mitigate the impact it has on the people on the receiving end of it.

I find it really bizarre how many people here are insistent on diminishing or excusing the experience the original commenter had.

I find it bizarre you're diminishing mine. I got roasted by leetcode pros and othered by turbonerds too. That's humanity. I bet they haven't gotten as far as me since then, and that's an attitude that anyone who has faced pointless discrimination should keep in mind.

I think it's nuanced. Women experience way more sexual harassment and being stalked than men online, even though men as slightly more likely to experience any online harassment in general. I can totally understand being specifically stalked or sexually harassed is on a totally different field than being called a retard for a suboptimal leetcode answer.

I had someone pay money, like $10 to attach a banner to my name on a forum, denying that I had a certification that I revealed I had to back up my claims of knowing a superior answer to some pointless argument. It was unsettling and aggravating for about a month before I found humor in it all. It's still one of my favorite communities and overall far more mature than when that happened ~10 years ago. Most people there are within a few years of my age, currently 30.

That doesn't address my point that women are way more likely to explicitly receive sexual harassment and stalking even when men report receiving more online harassment generally. I'm not arguing that you weren't harassed online, only that harassment is way more nuanced than whether or not everyone was equally victimized.

I mean, I get lots of sexual hate/harassment online for being traumatized from being circumcised, and advocating against it when not absolutely medically necessary, from people who tell me it's not a valid thing to be traumatized by. Most people just don't want to think about it but some people really put in effort to trolling about it. There really isn't a worse form of sexual discrimination than preventing one of the sexes from feeling full sexual pleasure.

That's still not addressing my point that this is more nuanced than "who got victimized more". You're just giving me multiple anecdotes of harassment you experienced personally, which is myopic if we want to talk about harassment on a population level (whether or not early-IRC was incredibly vitriolic towards minorities moreso than what is baseline normal for early-IRC). I'm literally agreeing with you that we have studies that show harassment generally occurs equally to everybody, except that some minorities receive greater proportions of specific kinds of harassment, and maybe that adds some nuance to the conversation. It has nothing to do with you personally.

It's very different.

Being roasted for being a moron was something where it was/is allowed to stand up for yourself. I know that when people thought I was male, I was allowed to give as good as I got as long as I knew how to take an L once in a while and had a thick skin. Arguing and insulting back is accepted and a lot of the arguments can be conclusively settled in some way. Even if you pedantically argue for something incorrect long after you should, you can usually make amends by accepting you acted like a dumbass and letting people clown on you for it.

The shit I got for being female was different because it was a bunch of projection that I had no way of addressing. There are a lot of people who are just plain not okay with the opposite sex and could not handle being turned down. The most vile crap was spewed in private and then it turned into 'he said/she said' or 'I/we can't control what members say or do outside of the channel/forum/newsgroup'. Ambient sexist atmospheres could not be diffused by giving the guff back as places that are 90/10 male to female do not respond well to the women clowning on the men: You can't answer 'get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich' with 'get back to the factory and make me money' because the men fall in line to support each other. You can't answer it by bringing it up seriously because then you're a buzz kill, etc. It's not two equals arguing; it's one side being told to shut the fuck up.

Nobody diminished your experience since you didn't relate your experience - you simply said that someone else was taking their own too personally.

> I find it bizarre you're diminishing mine. I got roasted by leetcode pros and othered by turbonerds too.

But you weren't targeted for this behavior due to your gender identity or skin color, and you more or less started off with "I don't think your issues as a Black person/as a woman have been that bad because my experience hasn't been bad." Like you immediately centered yourself in a discussion about other people, and have done nothing to show any effort to even hear what they're saying.

Additionally, one person's positive anecdotes do not outweigh another person's negative anecdotes. If I'm thinking about joining some arbitrary group of people and most of my friends say it's a good time, but even one person says "I showed up and all the men either sexually harassed me for being female or witnessed the harassment and did nothing about it", well, that tells me a lot more than the other person who says "They kind of joke around a bit but it's really a mostly positive place!"

As a father of a daughter, I appreciate you speaking up about this. I'd say the problem with being raised to be respectful toward women I really haven't seen much bad behavior toward women. I just didn't realize what a problem it was. But a regular at the coffee shop my daughter was working at started stalking her. We and the store both got restraining orders against him. Then we were out at dinner one night, sitting outside, and she actually saw him. I was facing my daughter and he came around a corner walking toward her (my back to him) and I saw my daughter's face. It was crushing as a father to see my daughter so utterly devastated so quickly. That is a memory I will carry to my grave.

Guys - be decent. Just, always. Always be decent.

This - be decent, and even more importantly - call out "indecentness" when you see it.

Call it out to 'friends', to family, online, in person - even if all you feel you can say is 'that isn't right' - say it - you don't need to get into fights, you don't need to be a saviour, you just need to call it out. You can use that as excuse to leave, or you can use that as a reason to stay.

But don't just ignore it.

> Online discussions where a lot of things just didn't matter. Race, gender, etc. just didn't matter. You got judged on the merit of your ideas, not what you looked like, not what you sounded like.

We actually had real diversity and inclusion before these rent-seeking social media corporations and their fake DEI came in and ruined it. On IRC no one knew I was a 14 year old, or an 80 year old retiree, or male or female, or black or white, whatever.

This ignores the rampant racist/sexist comments often made on IRC/BBS, which were a reflection of society. Anyone who spent a good amount of time in these communities know it was a problem - hence why some very small invite-only communities were formed.

So yes, the idealism is there. No one knows who you identify as in a text channel unless you let them. But it does not remove the fact that these communities could often have bigoted pockets.

> This ignores the rampant racist/sexist comments often made on IRC/BBS

Nice straw man argument you got there...

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

But I'll take the bait...

> Anyone who spent a good amount of time in these communities know it was a problem...

Interesting.

I've been on IRC for decades, and while any online forum has the feature where trolls are capable of making awful remarks for the lulz, it's been my observation those are outliers, and NOT an actual problem for focused communities.

> So yes, the idealism is there. No one knows who you identify as in a text channel unless you let them.

hrm... yeah, there is a dichotomy there, but not the false kind, more of the ying/yang kind. The same feature that fosters diversity is the same feature that allows for trolls.

> But it does not remove the fact that these communities could often have bigoted pockets.

There is no reason to practice fatalism here, or characterise rare events as common place. This is probably a variation of another fallacy called reductio-absurdism

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

Ultimately IRC has admins, moderators, and the ability to mute other people. That is why good prevails over evil on IRC, and why IRC has remained the place for smart people to connect online for so so very long... longer than any other mode of chat communication.

I've been on IRC for a similar amount of time, sexual harassment was always done in private so you wouldn't have seen it on main rooms, and victims were often newbies who didn't know reporting channels or didn't feel empowered to report, being the noobs and all. (Think randomly PMing women to ask for feet/boob pictures, or asking to be PMd to help debug something and then use it as an opportunity to pressure for sext)

I used to be part of multiple IRC channels that swear up and down that they're not a bigoted/political community they're just a focused technical chat about .NET or something, and then spout off calling things "faggotry" every day with no self-awareness whatsoever.

If one wanted to substantiate some of your claims here to be convinced of the problem you suggest, what's the best way to do that?

What are the names of the IRC channels you were part of that said they weren't bigoted but used homophobic slurs every day?

I'm just responding to one flimsy anecdote with my own flimsy anecdote. You can believe me or not. But I would suggest you ask yourself why you responded to me with this and not the guy I responded to, who also didn't provide evidence where they were.

Just for other people's benefit: this comment is an excellent example of the kind of harassment women and others face online. When they try to relate their lived experiences, they are questioned relentlessly and asked for proof of things that obviously cannot be proven in a conclusive manner. (And if any proof is given, the goalposts are typically moved.)

If your first response to someone saying "I was harassed" is "I need objective evidence before I believe that this could possibly have happened", you're part of the problem.

4 things (for other people's benefit):

1. This person didn't claim THEY were harassed. They claimed others were harassed. This was not THEIR lived experience. They were talking about harassment secondhand.

2. The secondhand claims of inappropriate language were made on the internet. The internet is different than the physical world. Much text typed on the internet is/can be recorded. It is a very common practice for someone who is being harassed on the internet to share with others the record of their harassment. The internet is perfect for this. It's certainly much messier out in the physical world to prove which is the analogy you seem to be trying to apply to internet communication.

3. I just asked WHERE it happened, not to provide a precise record of the claims. It wasn't a tall ask to respond with an internet location (i.e. channel).

4. Questioning claims is NOT harassment, especially when the cost to produce evidence supporting the claim approaches zero (as on the internet). This is a toxic mentality to employ, though I'm sure you think you are being noble with your #believeallclaims approach. If anything, people who employ a "DON'T QUESTION IT!" approach do themselves a huge disservice, as that is probably the least persuasive tactic to do and immediately signals a huge red flag to any neutral onlookers.

The topic here is asking for where secondhand claims of harassment on a part of the internet happened, with the context of it being contrary to MY lived experience in similar parts of the internet. I'm trying to square how this secondhand claim could be contradictory to MY lived experience, and to update my understanding if given new information.

As a last rhetorical example/hypothetical: Let's say I made a claim that someone replied to a tweet of mine this week calling me the n-word. Do you automatically believe me? If you sought to prove my claim by looking at my tweets, are you a racist that is harassing me? What if there is absolutely no record of the alleged tweet reply happening/existing (even accounting for a potential delete)? Would you ever waver in your belief of my claim?

Sure, I am being hyperbolic and should not be when presenting my perspective. Use the word rampant was misleading.

My point is that people hail these communities as the golden child of diversity in a community, but back in the late 90s and early 00s internet nerd culture was anything but diverse. Again, I am not saying diversity did not exist, but if you were to measure the amount of say.. white males vs other groups on IRC we all know which way it skews.

My other point was that, back then it was common in internet culture to throw offensive, racist, and sexist terms/jokes back-and-forth with no recourse as a form of trolling. The people using these terms may not even be racist/sexist, but from the perspective of a minority there is no difference.

I enjoyed being on IRC, to the point where most of my free time was spent gaming but then shifted to just chatting with folks on IRC. It was great. I miss it dearly. But I do not see it as some diversity golden child we should all aspire to.

i'm curious how much of this was actual racism vs spouting off a specific n-word in order to anger as many people as possible via minimal effort

Yes I believe this is the case, and was general internet culture in those days. Many offensive words would be thrown around without understanding of what they meant. But still, from the perspective of a minority, the intention probably does not make a difference to the experience.

As an anecdote, I was very active in those communities/networks back in the day, and I don't remember the rampant racism/sexism you suggest.

The main vector that people demeaned others on was based on technical skills.

Yeah not to defend how bad those spaces were but my memories of technical IRC channels on like Freenode was that they were mostly about helping people and discussing the technology the channel was about.

You never had to disclose any aspect of your identity. Your gender or ethnicity. You were just a username. The only thing someone could find out about you was your general location based on IP address but even that could be masked if you want.

I understand closer relationships formed on IRC I’m just saying, you could go there for help without experiencing prejudice. There was no expectation of revealing your real self.

Man, IRC was so toxic in many regards. Two stories:

On EFnet, there were aggressive racists in positions of authority. References to burning crosses, etc. Many of the earliest bash.org quotes originated there, including the idea that "the bash.org 'worst' quotes list is just "the best racist jokes list." The place was in generally incredibly abusive, and frequent channel and nick takeovers. The expectation of anonymity was a feature that enabled this behavior.

On Freenode, things were better. Pseudonymity let you hide from others but less so admins. But still there was a period of time where everyone was getting PM's about an IRC network where black people were banned (also, the thing was offensively named). It got so bad they had to institute a system to prevent DMs from unregistered accounts. You may also recall that one of Ubuntu's earliest contributions was a Code of Conduct, and that this was relevant because the #debian-* help channels were borderline abusive.

So yea, you didn't have to identify yourself, just humiliate and dissociate.

This was what I was thinking. There were lots of jerks on those forums[^1], but I didn't see many racists. Frankly, I don't know how anyone would be able to ascertain others' races in the first place.

[^1]: as far as I can tell, no one was welcome to ask questions unless they could first prove that they were smarter than everyone else about computing, in which case you wouldn't actually need to ask questions in that forum in the first place

> Not disputing your bad experiences, but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone? :)

So the opportunity to make many different people feel excluded is better? I'm not sure what you're getting at?

So you're arguing equality is bad, therefore some people need to be more equal than others?

I'm not.

The point was an answer to this question:

> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it.

The answer is: "in a somewhat limited way, yes, yes I do". I can't know exactly what it was (and is) like, but the diversity of awfulness in some of those communities allowed me to experience meanness on a level I had never experienced before, which in turn has helped me feel more empathy towards those who deal with things like sexism and racism both online and offline.

Before, I had only an intellectual understanding that those things were terrible, which led me to under-appreciate just how much they can hurt. Perhaps I still under-appreciate it (who knows?), but I'm definitely closer to understanding than I was before, and that's a good thing.

> The answer is: "in a somewhat limited way, yes, yes I do".

Prefacing "I know your experience" with "In a (very|somewhat) limited way" is vitally important.

Tbf, I miss the former dearly but am happy the latter is gone, particularly from forums. I don't know why people online felt they could be so abusive and harsh to others for no reasons. The taunting and garbage on twitter is mild (yes with "cancel culture" and all that) than the sheer virtriol that was just common place on forums in even the mid to late 00s.

Sure, virulent about everything that differed from the "engineering norm". How often were comments made mocking, stereotyping, or denigrating whiteness and white people? I can tell you not nearly as many as were made punching down at everyone else, and not nearly as harsh or gross.

The argument isn't that there was no good to be had from those communities, it's that you can't dismiss or ignore the bad that they put out as well.

I would not disagree, but wouldn't that follow the demographics of the population to a big extent? If we examine other communities in other languages, what were their dispositions, who did they target or not target? Did blondes target blondes or non-blondes, etc.

In other words did it or does it show disproportionality? If it's disproportional then that indicates it's outside the global norm. The above does not mean the global norm is an acceptable norm but helps calibrate and figure out how good or bad things were or are.

How is that relevant? Yes communities tend to be prejudiced against things outside their assumed norm and the anonymity of the web makes it easy for them to express it without repercussion. That doesn't make the negative impact it had on people in those communities not real.

Furthermore in regards to race specifically I would argue there probably were very few online tech/engineer communities anywhere in the world that widely targeted and denigrated white people until maybe just recently, and even then they are likely not popular or widely participated in.

I'm struggling to understand what the point you and other commenters here are trying to make responding to the original comment.

I think you might want to reflect for a minute on why you thought "but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone?" was an appropriate response to a black person talking about their experience of racism. I recognize you believed yourself to be mitigating the effect of your statement by prefacing it with "Not disputing your bad experiences," but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience, or at least pulling focus away from it in an unhelpful way.

And to counter your claim here - someone's "lived experience" is not a sufficient ballast for blindly accepting an anecdote.

People's memories suck. And more often than not subjective experiences don't map onto reality, especially when negative or stressful emotions are involved.

One negative experience on an IRC/forum can cloud a person's entire recollection simply on the basis of the Negativity Bias.

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

The point isn't to figure out whether these communities were a net positive or negative. I wasn't a target of any of the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc on these forums and chat rooms but I sure saw a lot of it everywhere I participated at a level that was kind of ridiculous in some cases. It clearly had impact on the people it was targeting, the degree to which it "clouds a persons recollection" is entirely irrelevant.

Is your point that their recollection should be dismissed? That they were too sensitive? It's unclear what this response's intent is.

I think the point was that you can’t debate or argue with anecdotes, in essence dismissing both comments.

Hmm... this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement". I think you might want to reflect for a minute on the importance of nuance in a discussion, and the net effect of trying to police comments on others' behalf.

I completely believe the commenter's experience, but I also witnessed the opposite a lot (and was deeply encouraged by it), and it's not wrong for me to chime in and point it out. And guess what? Experiencing vitriol on the internet directly contributed to me being more sensitive to things like racism. Although I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline, it wasn't until the internet that I caught a glimpse at how hurtful people could truly be. Again, not wrong for me to pipe up about it.

But it is unclear what you are disagreeing with. They never said that there was nothing positive in those communities. So what is the point of your comment? To make sure no one leaves this thread thinking that those communities were a net negative or something? I understand the desire to defend something you were a part of and got something positive out of, but the original commenter isn't criticizing people for enjoying or benefiting from those communities, they are pointing out that they had a clear negative impact on people who were targeted by those types of awful comments.

It’s unclear because you’ve concocted it. You’re asserting that there’s disagreement when there never was. I don’t strictly blame you for perpetuating ill rhetoric, but at least be aware that you’re responding to a stance that the comment in question never took in a fever to defend a black OP that never asked for any help and frankly IMO doesn't need it based on the high quality of their comment.

This is a discussion site, so not every comment needs to fit neatly in a 'agree' or 'disagree' bucket. That said, I'm in agreement with the comment I was replying to, and not actually defending anything at all - I meant for my comment to be taken at face value, nothing more.

> Hmm... this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement".

Not true. There is another acceptable response - not posting, taking some time to read and reflect, and moving along with your day.

You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.

> You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.

Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate? I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate. My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience. None of that is wrong for me to do. Have a great day!

> Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate?

You're allowed to participate, but I trust you can understand that in many situations there is a difference between what discourse is permitted in a space, and what discourse others might see as appropriate or a value add to the discussion.

> I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate.

Hmm, it is your place to be able to post whatever you like as long as it's permitted by the rules, but it's not the place of others to suggest doing so might not be appropriate, even if that is also permitted. Kind of a narcissistic, authoritarian mindset, it seems to me. Note that I didn't post "mods???" or report you.

"Authoritarian mindset" indeed!

Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood by initial and subsequent comments, so other than rereading them in good faith until you believe me when I say that I was neither disagreeing with the comment, nor trying to undermine his experience, nor defending bad stuff online, I don't think we can make any progress, so I'm moving on to other things. Have a great day!

> My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience.

Do you genuinely not see how "adding nuance" to a "semi-shared experience" is taking the focus away from the parent commenter's experience? When someone is recounting racism they suffered, how is adding "other people experienced other kinds of hate" adding any nuance? Do you genuinely believe that there's valuable common ground between, for example, a black person being called the n-word and another person who isn't black being called the n-word or some other slur?

> the only acceptable response is one of total agreement

That's not exactly it. The only informed response about a black person's experience on these platforms is a black person's. When people talk about "lived experience," the implication is that empathy is practically impossible. The best you can offer is sympathy.

> I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline

I am a white person who has been on the receiving end of racially-motivated police brutality. Even though it was racially-motivated I would not consider it a racist act. The fucker was merely angry at white people, that's different to racism. While there are places on the planet where white people experience racism (typically at the hands of other white people), I can almost guarantee that you have not - especially if you are American.

Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.

> The best you can offer is sympathy. > I can almost guarantee that you have not [experienced racism] - especially if you are American.

My goodness! How can you honestly make such an assertion? I am American, I've visited every state and lived in a dozen of them. I am well-acquainted with many forms of racism and am fascinated that you could believe such a statement. All I can say is that you are unequivocally wrong.

> Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.

This is absurd - finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism. Always insisting that someone's experience is too different for others to understand only serves to perpetuate division.

I will never know what it's like to be a black person and all of the stupid things black people have to up with. But experiencing unkindness and bigotry helps me understand a little. And while having just a couple of experiences where someone judged me and was cruel to me simply for being white is nowhere near the same thing as dealing with it for years, it's something I can extrapolate from, and it taught me more about racism than any number of books or articles ever could.

> All I can say is that you are unequivocally wrong.

You, as a white person, have been a victim of racism?

Edit: > finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism

How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?

> You, as a white person, have been a victim of racism?

Have I been told to leave somewhere because they don't want "whiteys" there? Yes. Have I been yelled at for being a "honky"? Yes. Have I been told things like, "all white people are ___"? Yes. Have I been in a group when someone said, "don't give any to the white kid" ? Yes. Have I been threatened with violence with the sole given reason being that I am white? Yes. Has a friend of mine been told not to be my friend because I'm white and we shouldn't mix? Yes.

(for reference, these occurred while living in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia)

Are these common experiences across the U.S.? I doubt it. Are they as bad as what black people have to deal with? No. Are they as widespread as racism towards black people? Almost certainly not.

> How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?

I haven't done that at all - maybe you read some other comment and thought it was mine? If so, no worries for the confusion, there's a lot of comments flying around.

> Have I been told to leave somewhere [...]

Why do some black people hate white people? Because their great grandparent perished on a cotton plantation, because their friend was hunted by some white folks in a truck, because their friend was choked to death by a white policeman, because your race is targeted by disenfranchisement.

Why do some white people hate black people? Because they hate black people.

There is a substantial difference between those two, and the difference is central to the definition of racism vs. racially-charged. Someone being a vengeful asshole does not make them racist, someone being an asshole to a race in general does not (necessarily) make them racist. Racism is hating a race, it is not being angry with a race that participated in horrific acts against you and your (in some cases near) ancestors.

Is it fair that you are being held accountable for the acts of your ancestors, and other living white people? No, that isn't the claim. You find the retribution you face unfair/unkind/unjust, as you have the right to. Now imagine facing the same for merely existing. The claim is that you couldn't possibly understand the experiences of a black person. The claim is that you do kinda' have to accept the stories of black people at face value.

The claim is that the vast majority of their life is defined by racist experiences, where you have a handful of racially-charged experiences to point towards.

You're conflating racism with the reasons for racism.

It doesn't matter how good or bad your reasons are: once you are feeling or expressing prejudice simply because someone is a member of a particular ethnic group, that's racist.

word!

No way. Racism is when you treat people differently because of their race. It doesn't matter what the reason is or if that reason is justified.

I won't be paying any more attention to this thread. I have evidently engaged in a fool's errand. If you continue to disagree with me and my learned viewpoint (I once believed that my police brutality experience was racism) then it is likely my fault for not being able to adequately convey this viewpoint. I can't see a way for me to express it any other way, so this discussion is pointless.

I have gone from your current viewpoint to my current viewpoint, because I was wrong. I won't be changing my mind to what I used to believe, now that I understand just how wrong I was.

Best of luck! If you do care to revisit the topic, I urge you to start with focusing on what racism actually is and isn't. Specifically, a racist act or thought isn't non-racist just because there is a "good" argument for it.

If you can get past that idea, then a lot of how we can fight racism follows pretty naturally (and, by extension, it becomes more clear that at least some of what is happening today in the name of fighting racism actually engenders it).

> this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement"

This is clearly a strawman. I wrote nothing remotely like what you're describing. I asked you to think about what prompted you to redirect the conversation away from a black person's experience of racism and towards whatever your idea of an injustice was. My hope was that upon such reflection, you might realize that black people experience these sorts of microagressions and dismissals routinely, and that such things add salt to the wounds caused by racism.

Instead, you went the fragility route. There couldn't possibly be something for you to learn here. No, instead, you have to create a strawman to protect your fragile ego from the idea that maybe you did something hurtful to someone, inadvertently or otherwise.

> but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience

Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.

> Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.

But it implicitly implies the negative experiences were similar in scale unless otherwise noted.

It downplays the very large weight that racism adds to the negativity of that experience even if the intent is a noble one of making that person not feel alone.

Or, maybe you’re the one projecting negativity for assuming that the existence of another anecdote downplays the black one in play? I give it no such credence.

"My mother died today." "Well, lots of peoples mothers died today."

Do you not see how that response is problematic? How it downplays the person's experience?

Thats not an accurate reduction.

Hate directed at black people, who have been exploited, oppressed, enslaved, killed, and more for over 400 years has a more significant and problematic impact than hate directed at other, more privileged groups. Recentering the conversation away from the black person's experience is a form of dismissal, not validation.

An abuser on IRC calling a black person the n-word is objectively more harmful than an abuser on IRC calling pretty much anyone else pretty much any slur.

I reject the claim that such a response is recentering the conversation, and I also reject the implicit assumption that words can be objectively harmful.

For instance, a black person might be reasonably angry at hearing the n-word, until they find out the person suffers from Tourette's, at which point the "harm" vanishes. The harm clearly did not result from the word but from the framing of the situation, and the framing exists entirely within the mind and can be changed.

This pattern of harm resulting from framing is seen repeatedly throughout psychology. Of course we should still push for relegating incorrect and outdated framings, like the various -isms, to the dustbin of history, but there's considerably more latitude for how to do this than naive language policing like is commonly suggested.

I think you might want to reflect for a minute that you are playing the exact DEI game that the OP is complaining about. You are dismissing your parent post's argument without addressing content of the argument. Essentially, your post boils down to "Don't argue with Black people. "Lived Experience" trumps all rhetoric and discussion. In the future, please keep your thoughts and concerns to yourself."

You are fostering a culture without room for discussion. You are also presuming to speak for the Black person two posts up. Solidarity is important, but shutting people down based on racial context isn't it.

I was not engaging with the argument made by the post I replied to because the poster's argument is completely beside the point.

When someone says "I experienced racism because I'm black," the appropriate response is not "Well, actually, lots of people who aren't black experienced that terrible thing." So what if lots of non-black people experienced that terrible thing? That's not what we're talking about here. Your statement is re-centering the conversation away from the black person who's describing their experience. And you know what? It's the black people who are being routinely discriminated against, incarcerated, and killed because of racism, so maybe it's irrelevant to say "my feelings were hurt on IRC too."

Are you Black?

And you're here dismissing their experience because they're not black. See the issue?

Being dismissive of the experiences of members of oppressed groups is objectively more harmful than being dismissive of someone not part of a similarly oppressed group.

I think your second point is really important: A lot of instances of what people perceive as -isms are relaly just people being mean not because youf your race/gender/whatever but because you annoyed them somehow or just because they can, and then reaching for whatever traits of yours they can to get to you. Lumping this with actual hate for people with different traits is only going to make honest discussion impossible.

> Not disputing your bad experiences, but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone? :)

The red head jokes were endless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com