Hacker News Reader

Comment by saboot | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure how other tech individuals feel about these issues, but with the accounts of mass public shaming by everyone against perceived injustices and their supporters I feel like the best thing for myself is to say and do nothing at all. Until the tone of the discussion changes I think many people will continue to feel this way as well

View on HN

I nearly always just keep my mouth shut because I know that I can be shot down and 'discredited' purely because I'm white, male, and straight. Part of it is perhaps age (I'm 31 now, and less angry/opinionated than I once was), but it's mostly just that I have, in the past, been repeatedly disregarded or outright abused because of who I am rather than what I'm saying. That kind of response is fundamentally censorious, and it has worked; I'm effectively self-censoring now to comply with the wishes/intentions of this lunatic fringe. From your comment, I get the impression you're doing the same.

The scary outcome of that is a continued chokehold on the narrative and conversation by these extreme fringes, and no change for the better because nobody is willing or able to engage in a reasonable discussion or take reasonable action.

Which, to me, raises an interesting question:

If someone can direct the wrath of the lunatic fringe at you with utmost impunity, can it really be claimed that they have no voice?

Because they're claiming they don't, while still exercising that exclusive privilege.

Agreed. I don't know why, but your post reminds me of the part of Cryptonomicon where the intellectuals sit around the table and nod incessantly as their Academic Prince derides the Internet because of who created it. The privileged academics who benefit from a very expensive education speaking ill of the privileged and expensive Internet infrastructure.

Say nothing, do as your conscience tells you.

In terms of the amount of good you can do in the world, it is probably better to be vocally moderate, and staunchly so, rather than silently moderate.

That's exactly what they want you to do. Don't try to form any sort of counter argument against them or you'll immediately be painted as a racist, bigoted, misogynist. And if you use your real name they'll attempt ruin your career and destroy your life.

I think that's a good response, but I'd suggest adding some listening and learning to it. The Internet is accelerating some important cultural changes.

For example, look at the speed with which gay rights have happened, and how quickly society changed. In my view, that's because the Internet has drastically increased the ability of people with minority viewpoints to be heard.

What does that feel like for somebody with the old opinions? It has to be hard. For their whole lives, something they didn't like was actively hidden from them out of fear. They just never had to accept that gay people were real humans. So now they have a whole reservoir of views and habits and comments that are no longer appropriate. Many surely feel uncomfortable enough that they just shut up in public.

And I think that's fine. Their views and habits and comments were part of the social structure that oppressed gay people. Nobody wants to hear them anymore. I think it's best for everybody if they say nothing in public. They should instead take some time listening to the gay people whose voices they previously ignored. To the extent that they need help working through their opinions, they should do that privately, with people already sympathetic to them, rather than demanding that the world help them process things.

I don't agree with the sentiment that those who are afraid of speaking up are supporting bigotry or inequality. I hope my comment doesn't imply that I would support those things, or belong to those with 'the old opinions'.

I'm sure you don't want to support those things. I don't either. But I expect we both accidentally do. Let's look at the previous example to gay marriage, interracial marriage:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-...

For a long time, it was the near-universal opinion that it was wrong. Now it's the near-universal opinion that it is fine.

When opposition was the dominant opinion, nobody thought that was supporting bigotry and inequality. Then there was a long period where one side believed it was bigotry and one side didn't. Now everybody sees it as bigotry.

For a long time, opponents of interracial marriage were comfortable sharing their views. Supporters were afraid of speaking up. Eventually supporters started speaking up energetically. Opponents did the same:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Rock_integrati...

Eventually, the tide turned. Opponents generally didn't lose their opinions, but they became afraid to speak up because of possible social consequences. And eventually a generation grew up that doesn't even question the topic.

Why does this matter? Well, either A) all racism, sexism, etc, have now been eliminated from society in this manner, or B) most of us harbor some bigoted, erroneous views that we haven't collectively recognized as wrong.

I believe it's the latter. That's certainly been my personal experience as I've come to learn about these topics.

    >  So now they have a whole reservoir of views and habits
    >  and comments that are no longer appropriate.

It's worth noting that pg considers[0] "inappropriate" to be one of the central nodes of a graph of lazy labels. The main problem with a lazy label is that it is used by the listener to suppress ideas rather than deal with them directly[1].

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/labels.html

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

I think this attitude is evident in your following statement:

    > Many surely feel uncomfortable enough that they just shut up in public.
    > ...
    > And I think that's fine. Their views and habits
    > and comments were part of the social structure
    > that oppressed gay people.

You can't be oppressed by an idea, viewpoint, or comment. That's not oppression, that's disagreement in a free society.

The article makes the point that the solution to hate is not hate in the opposite direction. Yet that's exactly what it seems like you advocate when you say that the Internet has drastically increased the ability of people with minority viewpoints to be heard, and then turn around and say you're glad that people who hold "old opinions" are not comfortable enough to share their viewpoints in public. Which is it, a more open or more closed marketplace of ideas?

    >  they should [work through their opinions] privately

The privatization of belief and the search for truth does nothing to help a secular, pluralistic society come together and live in harmony. Rather the opposite, when the only truth we agree on societally is the hivemind in search of the "arc of history", we'll end up with no basis on which to reject the totalitarian, authoritarian ideas which inevitably come in to fill the void.

At the risk of offending Godwin, I'd just like to point out that Hitler did not take over Germany with "old opinions" held by the establishment[2], but by some of the most highly educated moral philosophers of his day. Smart, progressive, socially-minded people who are asking good questions can still come to drastically wrong answers.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues

> inappropriate" to be one of the central nodes of a graph of lazy labels

Here I mean "wrong and recognized as so by a broad segment of society". For example, the inappropriateness of overtly racist statements has become greater over time, while their wrongness hasn't.

> You can't be oppressed by an idea, viewpoint, or comment. That's not oppression, that's disagreement in a free society.

You can definitely be oppressed by expressions of ideas. See, for example, these white people shouting at a 15-year-old black girl because they objected to her attending a white school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Eckford#/media/File:L...

> [...] hate in the opposite direction. Yet that's exactly what it seems like you advocate [...]

That is not in fact what I advocate. But I don't think freedom of speech means freedom from vociferous criticism or social consequences: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com