Hacker News Reader

Comment by timsally | Hacker News Reader

> But I think there's something fundamentally different about someone saying or doing something in ignorance -- especially if they appear contrite once they realize how it's made others feel -- and someone doing it purposefully, like the creep in the restaurant in Heidi's story.

Sure, agreed, and this is explicitly recognized by the US legal system (i.e. involuntary manslaughter vs. voluntary manslaughter/murder). That said, good intentions don't lessen impact on victims. Intention sometimes plays a role is determining what punishment is appropriate for the person who did the offensive/criminal act, but that's little consolation to those who are routinely targets of said acts. You're dead, whether the person that killed you meant to kill you or not. Something important to keep in mind in the context of harassment and conduct in the workplace.

View on HN

> That said, good intentions don't lessen impact on victims.

I fundamentally disagree with you on this, but I've noticed that people seem very divided on this issue.

Personally, if I'm offended by something and I learn that it was a fundamental misunderstanding and no harm was intended, then the anger/hurt/whatever emotion just goes away naturally, without me having to even consciously think about it or calm myself down.

My ex-wife was the opposite—once the anger happened it didn't go away no matter how much of a misunderstanding it was that triggered it.

I've come to think of it in terms of "Humpty Dumpty" from Alice In Wonderland[1]: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

IE, if you are taking more from my words than I put in them (including offense), then that is on you and is not my problem, especially after I've explained myself.

I've since learned to just remove the other type of people from my life as much as possible—they just aren't worth the trouble.

[1] Technically "Through the Looking Glass": http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm#link2HCH0006

On a personal and emotional level, I agree with you: once I learn it's a misunderstanding and no harm was intended, I often stop feeling angry.

Even if I'm no longer angry per se some hard feelings may remain. I have dealt with men & women from very conservative backgrounds who honestly and with great love believe I should not do what I do for a living, because it involves public speaking and evaluation of some men, which they believe violates 1 Timothy 2:12. I disagree and I need to remain steeled against the unpleasantness this brings up, even if we are friendly -- it's in this sense that I mean "hard" feelings.

And then I do agree entirely that good intentions don't lessen impacts on victims. The folks who don't want me to teach have good intentions, measured one way, and that's not really relevant. The folks who tell girls not to take AP calc because it's too hard and they won't need it have ~good intentions, but that's irrelevant. The folks who think I'll naturally be nurturing and try to give me some cuddly job with young children have good intentions but they're scarring me and the kids for life. The folks who pass over a woman for a promotion because they think she should focus on her family have good intentions, but she's out the cash and the accrued interest and career advancement for the rest of her life.

You're thinking about how we deal emotionally with good intentions, while the above poster is thinking about the money that's gone, the job that disappeared, the promotion that didn't happen, the mortgage whose interest rate was 2 percentage points higher.

I think the relevant difference here is "intended meaning" vs. "intended/assumed values". Understanding the other's intentions resolves the problem when you interpreted what they said differently than what they intended you to understand - it's essentially a communication failure. Understanding that someone considers chopping your limbs off a kind thing to do, though, does not change anything about the fact that you would probably consider that to be more at the evil end of the spectrum--all it might do would be to shift your anger from their specific action to their general stupidity for not recognizing that people obviously do express that they do feel hurt when you chop their limbs off.

> I have dealt with men & women from very conservative backgrounds who honestly and with great love believe I should not do what I do for a living, because it involves public speaking and evaluation of some men, which they believe violates 1 Timothy 2:12.

Every time I think I have a handle on how crazy people are, boom, a trap door opens. I'm sorry that you have to deal with nonsense like that. But I appreciate you mentioning it.

I think another important thing to consider is that not everyone who takes offense to another's use of language is always a victim, but they'll gladly play the role of victim if we allow it.

Sometimes people are actively looking to be offended. Take this one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc

> Sometimes people are actively looking to be offended. Take this one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc

That reminds me of a conversation I had nearly a decade ago with a black (African immigrant) friend. I don't remember the details, but basically he said that he was annoyed that the words "dark" and "black" had negative connotations. I knew him well enough to know that he wasn't trolling, and that this was something that had seriously taken an emotional toll on him.

Ever since then I've been thinking about this -- maybe it does bother a lot of black folks? And, think of very little whose conception of words is primitive, and how they might associate the words together.

I don't really know what I'm getting it. It's very hard to make any sort of conclusion here. I mean, what's the cure -- we make a prescriptive linguistic change that color-based words can't be used anymore? That's not happening.

I'm of Nigerian descent and I do notice that "black" and "dark" is usually used in the negative. But I know that's not based in racism.

The concept of dark/black being scary I'm confident pre-dates any racism towards african americans.

Also, there are a few things where black is used as positive.

- Finance; If you're "in the black", you're flushed with cash. There's some kinda dark irony here. ;)

- Rich people tend to wear expensive black clothes, expensive black cars... etc. Black is always in fashion and a symbol of wealth... which somehow, again, is ironic. ;)

Light/dark being good/bad in the European sense stems from good things being light and bad things being dark. Fire is good - it keeps you warm and cooks your food. The soot and char left over from the fire is bad, relatively useless. The day is good - it's when you're out and about, able to see and do things, and it's warm. The night is bad, you can't do much, it's hard to see and get stuff done. Criminals do their deeds in the shadows, where they're hard to see, as opposed to morally righteous actions, which are easily performed in the full view of day. Certainly in the christian theology that shaped Europe, dark refers to shadowy nefariousness, and not dark-skinned humans.

The black finance thing is rather simple - in bookkeeping, a positive total is written in normal ink, which is (usually) black. A negative total is written in red ink, to make it stand out. Being in the black just means you're not making a loss, though when used colloquially, as you say, it means you are flush with cash.

In China, white is the color of death. A dead body.and a ghost are pale.

Red is the color of life, of hearty blush in skin.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE84dHl5Nr0

Here is a clip for a classic hip hop song by 3rd Bass that is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYp28tEAVvs&t=1m58s.

The verse starts: "Black cat is bad luck, bad guys wear black. Musta been a white guy who started all that."

Interestingly, the MC in question here is white-skinned. I think he's Jewish, but I might be wrong.

From the perspective of an African immigrant, I would imagine that it is easy to see discrimination everywhere. I think your friend is annoyed that the idea of "blackness being inferior" is omnipresent (from his perspective). It's even built in to the very way we speak.

I think that what your immigrant friend really wants is just to feel like he has the same shot a person with white skin does. He's kvetching about words because racism is on his mind a lot, but he's not expecting you or anyone to rewrite the English language. He probably just gets treated poorly on a regular basis because of his race, and he wants that to stop.

You (We) could likely cure his annoyances while stopping short of major linguistic changes.

Seems obvious to me that black has negative connotations for all the things it's directly associated with due to the physical fact it's the absence of light. Darkness, death, etc. Humans are hard-wired to fear these things because without light we can't see and if we can't see we can't avoid danger, etc.

On the one hand, it seems clear that the cultural association of darkness as bad has nothing do to with racism. But does anyone know if cultures whose people have dark skin do not have the same connotations?

If the US did not have such enormous racial issues, I suspect that wouldn't be such a big deal. So if we don't want black people to be bothered by that, we could start with, say, eliminating the enormous amount of racial imbalance here.

Intent is huge. If my friend says something incredibly aggressive, but I know they are being facetious or sarcastic or humorous, I will find it amusing. If I know they are being serious, I will not find it amusing.

Actions are generally equal regardless intent, but IMO words depend immensely on intent.

I tend to agree but not completely. Someone mentioned further up that there are multiple categories of murder and also manslaughter, the conviction of which depends on intent.

By "actions are equal regardless intent", I was referring to the impact on the victim. Sorry for not being more clear!

That said, good intentions don't lessen impact on victims.

If someone pushes me hard because I might have been hit by a falling item, that has less impact on me than if someone pushes me hard because they want to start a fight or get the better of me in some way.

Most human actions don't result in the finality of death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com