Tech Culture: More Legos and Less Punch Buggy | Hacker News Reader

Tech Culture: More Legos and Less Punch Buggy

naramore.net

36 pointstswicegood25 comments

If you’ve not been a minority in a group before (especially in a career-type setting), then it is hard to even imagine what that’s like.

First of all, lets call this argument out for what it is - it's basically an appeal to authority. It's an implicit claim that if you aren't a member of a specific authoritative group, you are unable to reason about a topic. And it's a logical fallacy.

Second of all, it isn't even true. I've been a minority in a career-type setting ever since leaving academia and I've never had the reactions that the author's whiny male friend did. People mock me due to my unusual physical characteristics (e.g., I get sunburned), I mock them for being < 5' tall, then we get lunch.

It's no big deal because I choose to focus on the code, relax and roll with it.

But hey, I'm sure my experience will be dismissed because I'm not the right type of minority in a career setting.

"It's no big deal because I choose to focus on the code, relax and roll with it."

It's cool that you can take the prejudice you are dealt, but some people surely get worse than you. I'm not dismissing your experience, I'm just pointing out that it is merely YOUR experience. You (like everyone) can't speak for all minority groups.

I think you're kind of proving the author's point. You don't get hurt in those scenarios, therefore you think nobody does or nobody should.

Not everyone can be, or even should be, exactly the same.

I'm not disputing the author's main point. I'm pointing out a logical fallacy in their post.

It's only a logical fallacy if you stretch it too far. The original statement was that "it's hard to know what something's like if you haven't experienced it" which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, along the lines of "you haven't had salted caramel ice cream? You don't know what you're missing!"

You distorted that into "unless you are a member of the group, it's impossible for you to understand" which I guess would be a logical fallacy, but that's a different message altogether.

You're arguing personal anecdote (experience) against another one. Which is exactly what this article was about. While you cannot point to one person who belongs to a minority whos having some trouble and extrapolate that to the entire population of minority, neither can your counter example disprove the reverse statement. Logically speaking, one example of discrimination proves that "at least one person of this minority group is discriminated against" which leaves the stronger statement "many people of this minority group are discriminated against", while the negative (your experience) can only state that "not all people of this minority group are discriminated against", which strictly speaking isn't refuting the original point at all, since very few people are confident enough of their data to argue that all people of a minority are discriminated against.

Fair enough, although I'd like to speak up and say that a world in which nobody is allowed to say anything that could hurt anybody's feelings wouldn't be a very interesting place to live in (for example sometimes the truth hurts). I don't want to defend sexist jokes or whatever is the problem, I just don't like the emotion argument, because it is too easy to manipulate people using it.

There's a huge difference between a world in which nobody is allowed to say anything that could hurt anybody's feelings and a professional workplace where people are not systematically alienated for not being part of the dominant group.

Be as edgy and offensive as you want, on your own time, thanks.

There isn't a practical difference between those when there's no consensus about what's alienating. Offices must be bland, because society has decided that making brittle people unemployable would be a worse thing to do. I actually sort of agree with the logic, while disliking the forced choice.

There isn't a practical difference between those when there's no consensus about what's alienating

It seems that the consensus that reasonable people are closing in on is that once someone takes the effort to tell you something is alienating, it probably is, and that saying "lighten up" or "grow a thick skin" is probably the wrong response.

Also, "brittle people", really? Most people would be seen as brittle if the right pressure were applied to them.

I think you are talking about a different thing.

Yeah, I should have put that better, I think I got it from Dilbert. I was alluding to the outliers, the people who are most sensitive to small and surprising provocations, because that's where every employer must set the bar regarding what's acceptable.

The problem with the pedophile argument is that being called a bitch or treated like a secretary cannot result in you ending in jail.

After this can we please not post anymore racist/sexist/*ist stuff? I don't know about you, but I come here for the news about tech and the super insightfull comments and these stories seem a waste of brain power.

> After this can we please not post anymore racist/sexist/*ist stuff?

How about we stop talking about racism and sexism when there's no more racism and sexism? And how is talking about a problem that effects people negatively a "waste of brain power"?

After this can we please not post anymore racist/sexist/ist stuff?*

Looking at the number and frequency of high-voted posts, it seems like there is a pent-up demand for this kind of conversation. I'm finding myself learning more about something I care deeply about. That's the whole reason I come here.

I've been mocked plenty for a bunch of reasons and I'm sure everyone has too. When I was a kid I ran up to my mom and said "Hey mom, that kid was mean to me." and she would tell me "Just ignore him." and make me go play again. Now I'm a grown up and I don't need to go to my mom everytime someone makes fun of me or looks at me wierd. And I sure don't go whinning to the internet.

The lego analogy is good, the Punch Buggy is not.

Here's the thing: words (as opposed to physical violence) are very curious insofar as they can only hurt you as much as you let them.

I'd suggest that it'd be better to try and cultivate thick skins, and to publicly shame or ignore people who are acting like idiots until they knock it off.

Racism, sexism, genderism (is that even the right word?), and agism are all stupid biases, and by treating them like a valid threat instead of a silly self-limiting arbitrary preference we are doing well by no one.

> Here's the thing: words (as opposed to physical violence) are very curious insofar as they can only hurt you as much as you let them.

What happens when Bob, (who was hospitalised for 6 weeks by a gang who beat him while shouting racist abuse at him[1]) hears someone using that same racist abuse?

> Racism, sexism, genderism (is that even the right word?), and agism are all stupid biases, and by treating them like a valid threat instead of a silly self-limiting arbitrary preference we are doing well by no one.

I really don't understand the self-limiting argument. It's made very often. Maybe I'm being a bit thick but doesn't history prove it wrong? Women (in the UK) were openly paid less than men until laws were passed. That didn't self-limit. It was common (in the UK; after WW2) for people letting rooms to have signs saying "No Blacks No Irish". That didn't self-limit.

How is the feeling Bob has any different from the same guy getting beaten the same way by a gang in a particular brand of car whenever he sees that car?

Do you want to ban that car brand too?

I don't want to ban anything, not even words.

Some words come from hate, and are used by hateful people, and the recipients of those words will perceive that hate, and it's not their problem of having thin-skin.

(btw: I am not going to post anymore about this. Kind regards.)

I find that most people's suggestions on this topic are that someone else modify their behavior to accommodate the suggester. This observation applies to both sides: pro-feminists suggest men stop behaving in ways that offend them, and (non-pro-feminist) men suggest that women stop being offended.

I don't think we're going to get very far when both sides put the responsibility[1] for action on the other party.

[1] Responsibility is not the same as blame.

You're welcome to do as you please, of course. Just acknowledge that, if it pleases you to be offended when somebody says something factually incorrect about you, well, by golly, you'll be offended.

We cannot do anything by message passing (especially on the internet) that directly and unstoppably changes the mental state of another person--they must read it, and then become offended or not. This is trivially shown to be true.

You don't throw a system out on the 'net without hardening it--even well-meaning applications can cause problems if you don't.

Similarly, even well-meaning messages can cause people distress if they allow them to; it's better just to have thicker skin and deal with the unrepentant troublemakers by ignoring them or correcting them.

> Here's the thing: words (as opposed to physical violence) are very curious insofar as they can only hurt you as much as you let them.

Life is not that simple.

Psychologists have shown that exposure to 'harmless' sexist humor can lead to an increase in the toleration of hostility towards, and discrimination against, women.[1]

'Growing a thicker skin' might save your feelings for a bit, but the net effect is paradoxically that over time your ability to tolerate 'minor' comments will open you up to increasingly more serious discrimination.

Far easier to nip the discrimination in the bud when its still a dumb blonde joke, far harder when it's serious pay discrimination or outright sexual harassment.

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.ht...

We can (and should!) address directly and harshly things like pay discrimination and sexual harassment (ill-defined though that may be).

The writeup in the news article you cite doesn't really address either the rigor or testing circumstances of things--I'd be hesitant to take it as gospel.

(minor note: the article you refer to is available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056796 but is behind a pay wall)

Telling people to grow thicker skins is such a cheap way out. Outrage is an appropriate response to an outrageous situation.

words (as opposed to physical violence) are very curious insofar as they can only hurt you as much as you let them

It's not about the words themselves. It's about behaving in a way that is aggressive, dismissive, and disrespectful.

What's the appropriate reaction to someone treating you in an aggressive, dismissive, or disrespectful way? One might feel aggressed, dismissed, or disrespected (or offended even).

Maybe you're so self enlightened and have such an exquisitely sublimated ego that nobody can hurt you through those kinds of behavior. But it's not typical, and isn't a reasonable expectation for your fellow humans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com