Hacker News Reader

I have a hard time following this line of reasoning. I don't think GP's point is to "ignore systemic discrimination". Rather, it is to ignore those things on which people are discriminated. How can you discriminate against, say, race, if you don't pay attention to the person's race?

Specifically, for tech, if you happen upon a code written by someone called "didgetmaster" on github, and the author makes no comment about who they are as a person, how does this contribute to discrimination? Isn't this the whole point of anonymous resumes and such to fight discrimination against minorities for employment?

You are technically right if the goal is to stop ANY kind of discrimination. But is that the goal?

I don't know, and I admit I was operating under that assumption.

But is that not the goal? Is there some kind of discrimination which is "good", and should go on?

I think you're raising the paradox of tolerance.

Should I accept technically perfect PRs if they contain comments and messages with hate speak?

There is no paradox of tolerance. This is a social contract, once you break it you are not entitled to it, simple. Also speech, not speak.

The issue arises when people disagree on what reality is.

When most Americans are running on pure ideology and a (quite unearned imho) sense of moral certainty and superiority, they assume their worldview is the objectively correct one, and everyone who disagrees with them is "a bigot."

Both sides of our divide have some psychotic people who do things like murdering people. But absent actually harmful acts like that, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone intolerant. It could be that your framing is wrong, or that there isn't one black-and-white objective universal right way of framing an issue.

> The most striking argument against this line of reasoning is that there is no possibility for you not to act politically. By ignoring the issue of systemic discrimination (“don’t care don’t personally discriminate”)

This is not a very good argument, it would make the words "political" and "systemic" simply meaningless. First of all, it's implicitly assuming that the only way of effectively addressing the issue of systemic discrimination against X is to actively care about whether X is involved in the stuff we personally use. But "personal" and "systemic" issues and approaches are mutually contrary; that's what "systemic" means. Also if every social action is "political" by definition, what's even the point of resorting to the word "political" to begin with? It's not saying anything of relevance.

As a person, treating everyone the same is an excellent response (and even a political one, if you wish) to counteract a system of discrimination.

Agreed.

To illustrate, say you live inside a fenced-off city. You say you don’t discriminate, anyone is welcome to come and talk to and trade with you. Somebody points out that there are people outside the city, behind the fence, that aren’t able to come talk to you. You are free to act or not act on that, but speaking out against the one that merely points it out and tries to change it means you take an active position to support the current discriminatory situation, rather than a passive, opportunistic one that supports whatever the political situation happens to be.

All positions are valid positions to take. They do however reflect an active choice and an active act. All of them are political. All of them come from a position of privilege, being inside the city, not outside.

No-one is "speaking out against" the one who is pointing out any wider discrimination, beyond whatever aribtrary circle you choose to draw.

What is being "spoken out against" is the idea that taking the moral (or political) action within whatever circle you feel able or willing to support is insufficient, or even discriminatory in itself. After all, this is exactly how this conversation started. Good for you if you want to change the world - let's not forget 3rd party discrimination against other 3rd parties! For many of us, it's one of numerous pressing problems to be addressed. If you wish to bring privilege into it, having the freedom to make fighting any and all discrimination a primary concern is a sign of privilege that few have.

I am raised in hindu religion and we have a saying here basically meaning, treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself and I am sure that literally every main religion and philosophy can kind of share the sentiment and create a tolerant society overall.

Shame that those same religions and people in power forget this core part I suppose. I think that the forgetfulness might be on purpose but I basically hope we can treat literally everyone others the way we wish to be treated ourselves, with dignity and respect.

Of course, some people who are clearly bad shouldn't be treated this way but I hope you can get what I mean by the general sentiment of this idea I guess.

> treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself

This is often called The Golden Rule because it is one of the most common tenets of every religion and ethical framework ever made

Wow, I had just observed that this seemed very common in religions I didn't know I was this accurate as that was called the golden rule!

Now hearing it, I remember hearing something similar but thanks for refreshing and thanks for letting me know

Now that we are talking about golden rule, I often wonder, if this is the case, then why not skip all the other aspects of religion which were meant in tribal times or have issues which still persist to put more emphasis on this "golden rule"

Is this what humanitarianism is (sort of?)

People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years.

I just do not believe it anymore when it is used exclusively to shut up people who want to say an unfairness exists.

So your belief is that anyone who would claim to treat everyone the same falls into that camp?

That's quite the characterisation to make, and a bit difficult in the context of discrimination which is based on lumping people together based on one trait and making assumptions about everyone in that group.

> People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years.

No, we just left the Democratic party once you guys stopped being serious. Judging people based on the color of their skin instead of by the content of their character is just as toxic and evil no matter what your claimed motivation is.

Most people don't really endorse Trump or endorse everything the radicals on the right are known for, but I can see that it appears that way to the people pushing DEI and race-and-gender-based everything -- because a clear plurality have indeed rejected the Democratic party, resulting in them losing even when running against a corrupt buffoon.

I said I don't care about the backgrounds of the creators of tech that I use.

I do care when other people in tech insist that I should care, and that I should make decisions based on the identity of certain individuals.

So systemic discrimination is an individual problem?

Silence is violence?

It is a collective issue, and as such also the responsibility of each individual indeed. And silence can be one of the psychologically most damaging forms of violence, leading even to physiological damage when persistent.

https://vipinbhasin.com/2024/10/21/the-impact-of-silent-trea...

https://www.royalblueheating.co.uk/08-164491-silent-treatmen...

etc.

what he meant was he "does not care to be told about it"