Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiggyJohnson | Hacker News Reader

I vehemently disagree. Unless there is reason to suspect race is a factor, which there is none in this case, then discussion should move on the issue at hand, and speculation about racism should be discouraged or ignored. Your perspective, while well intentioned, is exactly the sort that drives needless division and suspicion in modern discourse.

View on HN

To be clear, you do not believe that the Rust Leadership should make it clear how they came to this decision such that any speculation of other reasons can be put to bed?

The fact that it’s open to speculation is the exact reason they need to address it. Just ignoring it at this point doesn’t seem like a good idea, does it?

No, I absolutely think they should make that clear. But among all the reasons they made this decision, however opaque things have been thus far, I think it’s wrong to speculate that the cause is racism.

What are you vehemently disagreeing with me about then?

That race is a reasonable suspicion until barring further explanation/transparency. And additionally the “to be clear” refrain.

It might not be reasonable, but it is likely.

why?

upon what basis could you possibly make this claim?

Humans engage in tribalism and racism regularly.

Thus someone might assume something of that sort is at play here, though it might be an unreasonable assumption for reasons x, y, and z.

It takes a low mind to think low.

I don't appreciate the insult, especially saying I have a "low mind" whatever that means.

I am not racist. I wouldn't wager that this was race related. But I wouldn't say that someone seeing the situation, and then making the assumption that is it is race related, is out of the realm of possibility.

I would think that would be an unfortunate, but frequent, take away if the average person evaluated things at surface level.

You can disagree with me here, maybe with a Gallup poll for example, without insulting me.

Just because this is a sensitive topic doesn't mean you get to throw around insults and look down on another person.

shameful

See my response to Tremon but resorting to an ad hominem based on an (incorrect) assumption of how I judged the situation is both rude and a waste of time.

it's not an ad hom—it's shameful to truly believe that all or even just most "racist" people actively take action upon their racism, given any opportunity to do so, even when it's completely obvious that said racism-based action could be obviously traced back to the person in a position of organizational leadership such that they could take said action, and that such a person is even remotely likely to exist at the top of the Rust Foundation, and that they're just so gosh-darned racist that they impulsively act upon their racism at every possible opportunity, even in blatant defiance of basic corporate self-preservation instincts, such that there's any mere semblance of a shred of a possibility that this action was "because racism." shamefully delusional, there's no way around it.

Look man, in my opinion, in the current political climate this is clearly on the short list of possible bad takes for this tech scandal (hate the phrase, but it fits).

That is why this thread even exists in the first place.

That was my whole point.

You calling me "shamefully delusional" is definitely an ad hominem no matter how many words you try to stuff in my mouth.

hm, to me the opposite seems more likely. Rust community/leadership/confs/organizers seem very far from racism. some idiotic internal petty/interpersonal conflict seems much more likely IMHO.

Your “to be clear” bears no resemblance at all to what was written.

How do you define "reason to suspect"? E.g. what separates the actions that would result from your position from the actions that would result from a position of "there's nothing wrong with racism as long as it's not said aloud"? Established behavioral patterns? Less than that? More?

If the one black guy in the entire convention had his talk downgraded through back-channel means, I would suspect race had to do with it (if only obliquely, in that often black peoples actions are often received in much less good faith than other races). If it was actually just general leadership incompetence I think that would be important to highlight. It’s super weird when the only black guy gets sus behavior, but it’s less weird if leadership has been sus for a while and it just happened to drive off the one black guy.

The problem with assuming race has something to do with it is, you don’t learn the author’s race as you read his blog and interact with him via git.

So you must assume either that the decision makers knew through other channels, or that without knowing, they’re out-crowding him via subconscious selectors.

If you think this is a race thing, you probably think everything is a race thing.

Well I mean very clearly the community knew he was black. That’s why this discussion is being had. It’s not like the guys talk was downgraded and he went “surprise!! You can’t downgrade me because I’m black!!”. No, everyone knew he was the sole black person doing a talk in the entire event and he was the sole person who was downgraded in a backchannel, opaque manner. I would think that to be sus.

Yeah, okay.

I didn’t know that ThePHD was black. I think you paint “the community” as more homogenous and informed than it is. But I understand that the involved parties are aware of each other’s races.

I understand, then, a need to speculate on racism. But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t?

> But how do you advance from speculating about racism to inferring that it is or isn’t

I mean that’s why the original “btw this didn’t have to do with his race” statement existed. If you’re (hypothetical you) giving special, opaque treatment to the sole black person in the group, then it’s on you to clear up any speculation the opaque treatment had to do with being black, because it was only happening to the sole black person.

So the leadership did an opaque thing to the sole black guy and then clarified the weird thing had nothing to do with his blackness, just their poor communication or whatever.

Humans are capable of consuming information that is not from blogs or git so I have no idea what you're trying to convey here

There is reason to suspect race is a factor: the facts of who was disinvited and how they were treated. There is also reason (the word “uncomfortable” in JT’s post) to suspect people are weaponizing DEI language and sensitivities as an “I win” button to boot the speaker, which ironically is having the opposite effect than what DEI initiatives generally intend.

I vehemently disagree. The possible motives of those in power should always be looked at with a microscope, unless they give us comprehensive reasons as to the decisions they made. Your perspective, while well intentioned, is exactly the sort that drives implicit bias and a disregard for minority considerations or reasoning that the decision makers don't personally relate to.

> The possible motives of those in power should always be looked at with a microscope

There are myriad possible motives. Looking at them all without evidence is not productive. I would say that all credible motives and reasons should be examined. But speculating about every or any possible motive without evidence or meaning is a waste of time at best.

Speculation always devolves to a waste of time if extending indefinitely without reality checking. When it comes to people in power the speculation can, at the very least, encourage them to be loquacious with respect to the reasons for their decisions.

I agree, but it seems you reworded my common with little deviation??

I deviated what I thought was the important part, and left the rest undeviated to send a message. If you agree, then we have no issue. It's fine to assume racism until the person demonstrates otherwise. And if assuming racism prompts them to so demonstrate, then it's to the good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com