Hacker News Reader

Although I'm not in particular agreement with the OP, your reply is hardly accurate, either. Are you implying that these groups are incapable of making and handling crude/dark humor?

Either that, or that membership in one of them includes some sort of special permission to use humor more broadly than is allowed to people who don't have any boxes to check.

Edit: I can't reply to the children (might be my karma game) and so I'll reply here.

Sometimes it takes a few minutes for the relevant 'reply' links to show up. It tends to happen on busy threads; I understand it's a mechanism to slow down flamewars.

> Are you a person of color? Are you a woman? Are you gay? Are you trans? Are you disabled?

Does it matter?

Yes. If you're speaking from able-bodied, neurotypical, straight, cis, white, male privilege, your opinion on how hurtful 'trolling' is to people who don't share your privilege carries no weight.

I'm not, actually, but that rarely seems to make a difference to how much weight my opinion carries with people who don't share that opinion. If nothing else, the facts that I only tick one, maybe two, of the boxes you listed, and that I loathe identity politics games in general, almost always outweigh the substance of what I actually happen to be saying.

Your distaste for identity politics doesn't obviate other people's legitimate concerns about them.

That's probably the single thing about identity politics that crosses me the worst: there are actually legitimate points in there, but they're so deeply buried under assertions like "you can't say X around me because I'm Y" and "P's have mistreated Q's for so long that Q's deserve special treatment from P's in recompense", which may not be contested in any fashion but must be taken as axiomatic, that ordinary people of all stripes, who would otherwise be quite sympathetic, instead flee screaming into the night.

I am not saying "you can't say that". I am saying that the context of who is speaking matters quite a bit. It may not seem 'fair' that when speaking on how hurtful a statement is to a particular group, whether you are actually a member of that particular group is highly relevant, but that perception of unfairness is itself an aspect of privilege.

Basically, if you make a joke about a group you aren't a member of, don't expect to be able to tell someone who is a member that it's 'just a joke', and that goes double if you're a member of the dominant group (whichever that happens to be in context).

Personally, I hit almost all of the privilege checkboxes with the (very mild) exception of religion/ethnicity. Guess what? If you aren't Jewish, and you tell me a Jewish joke, and I take offense (and I might even if it is a joke I have used myself), and I then call you out on it, 'lighten up' just isn't an appropriate response, regardless of the fact that you may not have privilege in some other area.

When did HN devolve into the insipid land of Tumblr SJW? It takes some mighty mental gymnastics to convince yourself that only a black, trans, gay, crippled, ADHD person is allowed to offer opinions

No, but the point is that a lot of people will quite happily insist "I'm not really hurting anyone", immediately after being pointed out to that their behaviour patterns do in fact hurt people. That's almost exactly what happened upthread. In many people's books, that's really not on.

You don't need to invoke the strawman of Tumblr to conceptualize that at a first-order guess the dreadful SJW (what a terrible insult!) who's been coping with racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism for most of their life has a more insightful perspective on those issues then some dude who only reads about discrimination as something that happens to other people.

Because they're not people too?

Why does privilege mean that white, male, straight, or non-disabled people are not allowed to say "lighten up" or even express an alternative opinion on these topics? Why are their opinions now less because of their skin color or sexuality?

Privilege goes in both directions: It's now become standard to diminish any white male's opinions on matter of diversity or gender or race, because of their identity, and give explicit power to anyone who is not a white male to criticize that group. Some say it's "leveling the playing ground" but it often just turns into a straight-on attack. It is now highly possible for someone in the "most privileged" group to be accused of X -ism and then be publicly attacked by outraged people, often with real job consequences.

By the way, I'm not white, but I don't think that should give my argument any more or less power. The post-modernist focus on identity politics and who is making the argument gives another channel for an ad hominem attack merely phrased in other words.

Edit: I can't reply anymore, but there seems to be a spectrum of offensiveness - and "lighten up" means moving the bar of acceptability in one direction, when people disagree about crass or potentially offensive humor - though of course the bar is different in a professional setting. In general I try to be respectful and conscious of potentially offensive things in a work-place. But among my friends (or among co-workers who have become friends), or at a comedy club, I'd imagine we develop a different threshold of offensiveness and be more open to crass humor. That's the "breaking the ice" effect Roizen mentions in her last example

NOBODY should be saying "lighten up." I don't think you understand the context in which "lighten up" is being used here. "lighten up" here is when you say that after a serious offense has been made.

And it's not a straight white male that is always saying it.

>Why does privilege mean that white, male, straight, or non-disabled people are not allowed to say "lighten up"

Obviously every situation is different but in general white, straight males have historically set the bar for "offensiveness" and everyone else just had to deal with it. When people speak up and say they're offended by something, maybe dirty jokes in the office, they're told to lighten up.

>Why does privilege mean that white, male, straight, or non-disabled people are not allowed to say "lighten up" or even express an alternative opinion on these topics? Why are their opinions now less because of their skin color or sexuality?

Here is why:

"Why did the chicken cross the road? BECAUSE NEGROES CAN'T READ. HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!!!! Pretty funny, huh? Oh, come on, lighten up."

^Typical context in which "lighten up" is used . You don't want to sound like that guy, do you? So don't say "lighten up', no matter what race or orientation you are.

If someone finds your joke uncomfortable (like I'm hoping we all found the joke above uncomfortable) trying to cajole them into comfort with it is wasted effort at best, continuation of harassment at worst, and a simple dick move most likely.

One good reason: ignorance.

If I were to say "lighten up", it would basically be asserting that I am a better judge of the impact of a comment than the person who's upset. But as relatively privileged person, I am much less often on the receiving end of offensive comments, and I have more resources to deal with situations like that.

If I were to say something racially tinged to a black person and they thought it offensive, I would be strongly inclined to credit them because they've had a lot more opportunity and a lot more incentive to think about the nature of racism.

I agree it's not a perfect rule, but it's certainly the way to bet.

Another big reason to do so is power. Things like "lighten up" are used by privileged groups to suppress criticism because that helps maintains the power imbalance. Not consciously, mind you, but as apes we're hardwired for status.

Those don't matter and what you are doing is generalizing lots of groups of people which is something I assume you would be against. What matters is individuals. Some gay people don't mind jokes about being gay, some do. Some women don't mind jokes about gender, some do. If you are a in a professional setting you NEVER lead with a joke about something personal or potentially controversial if you are not among very very good friends. These topics, along with things like religion and politics, should just not be joked about in a professional setting. If I'm a white male is it ok to joke about my baldness? My religion? My weight? That's my point. It doesn't matter who you are, you don't bring things like that up in a professional setting.

Those do indeed matter. As Louis CK artfully explains, as a white male, you can't even hurt my feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

It's almost impossible for me, as person advantaged by society, to fathom the death-by-a-thousand-papercuts feeling that people who are less advantaged experience. I've tried a lot, for years, and I regularly fail. Just today, I read a great piece titled, "Calling the White Man's Police": http://tressiemc.com/2014/05/02/calling-the-white-mans-polic...

And another little bit fell into place for me. Yes, around here, they are effectively they white man's police. There are a number of factors around calling the police that I never thought about because I never had to. Because I'm white and educated and articulate and I've been well off for long enough that I have a lawyer who I can afford to pay.

It would be easy for me to think trolling is an awesome way of bonding with everyone because my life is pretty swell. I can hear offensive things and not sweat it because I'm safe. But for people whose regular experience is a lack of safety, hearing offensive things is entirely different. Then, an offensive comment isn't necessarily an endearing reminder of cameraderie, it's often a glaring reminder of inequality.

That's not to say I won't engage in clever banter. But I am very careful when it crosses lines of privilege or trauma. As John Scalzi says, "The failure mode of clever is asshole." http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/06/16/the-failure-state-of-c...

Are you saying if you're a heterosexual white male you have no concept of exclusion or discrimination?

People are more than just their race and sex and sexual orientation. People can be discriminated against due to their disability (mental and physical), weight, appearance, intelligence, background, etc., etc., etc.

Protip: if you read somebody as saying something obviously idiotic, try assuming that they are smarter than that and work out their meaning from there.

> Those do indeed matter. As Louis CK artfully explains, as a white male, you can't even hurt my feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Consider Louis' example (paraphrasing): "'cracker' [...] bringing me back to owning land and people".

If we're to discuss this as something that might be offensive rather than just a joke (which we obviously are at this point), this could easily offend someone. Is it inoffensive to refer to people as slave owners, really? Or to refer to white people as guilty of that kind of thing by association (assuming that they're ancestors owned slaves; but it still isn't okay to project these "sins of the father")?

Why does that matter? Why would you say offensive things about people's physical characteristics and things that aren't their choice? That's just intelectualy lazy and pretty damn mean.

I find that people give you plenty of opportunities to poke fun at them without being lazy about it.

edit: The general idea is to only make fun of things people are completely secure and confident about, otherwise you're not being funny, you're being mean.

> The general idea is to only make fun of things people are completely secure and confident about

How do you know that's the case though?

Exactly. Things may take a completely different meaning depending on the people you're with.

I remember a conversation from a while ago when young me called a gf of mine the "prettiest black girl ever."

When she asked me, "why not just prettiest girl ever?" I was completely dumbfounded because while that's what I had meant, I realized that I no idea what a simple qualifier could do to the meaning of the phrase for someone.

I learned a valuable lesson that day that I won't ever forget. I don't considered myself 'censored' since then, just significantly more tactful in social situations.

So perhaps like ribbing people in a tongue-in-cheek fashion for using the "wrong" text editor?

I think that sort of thing is fine and generally accepted, provided you don't become hurtful or vicious with it.