
Subtle -isms at Hacker School - nqureshi
https://www.hackerschool.com/blog/38-subtle-isms-at-hacker-school
======
HarrietJones
Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News.

It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can
be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of
thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less
interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing,
holding and exercising social power.

Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things.
They're just another small-p political tool to be used by politically minded
people to exert social control.

~~~
Zikes
The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could
easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist
or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it.

If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle
-isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops,
sorry".

~~~
beering
Perhaps not the most subtle example:

I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on
being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an
irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral.

If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better
way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and
try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say
"sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.

~~~
Zikes
You can manufacture as many straw-man examples as you like, but it won't
matter. My comment did not say that I said anything specific or anything that
could or should be construed as offensive.

Is it really so hard to believe that I did not say something offensive? Is it
impossible to think that the person doing the call-out can be in the wrong,
that they might be imagining or even willfully manufacturing an emotional
distress?

Are we all now to be beholden to the whims and fancies of those that
continually reshape the landscape of political correctness in an effort to
exercise a modicum of control or power over their peers?

My proposed solution is simple: if someone tries the call-out method and they
are in the wrong, you reply in a manner that is just as direct and non-
confrontational. "No, it wasn't."

------
whiskypeters
_" we've been trying to stop using "you guys" to refer to mixed-gender
groups."_

Am I the only one that finds this over the top?

 _" No 'subtle -isms' is about recognizing the ways we're unconciously_ [sic]
_making our friends ' lives a little worse."_

I'm sorry, if your life is _made worse_ by a completely benign (and friendly)
statement like "ok guys, have a nice weekend" then you are naive and
irrational. Creating an environment that indulges every childish sensitivity
does not do those individuals any favors and makes a mockery of their cause.

 _" For the last year, the 'No subtle -isms' rule has carried some
implementation guidelines. One of these is asking people not to debate whether
or not something is an -ism."_

Accusing someone of (even subtle) sexism or racism is _not to be taken
lightly_ —this rule forces the accused to apologize (affirming the alleged
bias) without defending or explaining themselves. This is unethical and
dilutes legitimate complaints.

A proverb that comes to mind: "Those who speak most about misfortune will find
it. Those who speak most about success will find it."

~~~
cfqycwz
The "you guys" instance seems a bit silly at first but is a good example of
the way our language promotes the idea of male as the default. Note that there
are no feminine words which we gender-neutralize in a similar way--we refer to
a collective as "guys" or humanity as "mankind," but never use "gals" or
"womankind" to refer to a mixed-gender group. In this way we construct women
as an other, in opposition to men: the expected members of the workplace are
guys, we expect history-makers to be men, and women are the odd exception to
that rule.

It is important to note that very few of the people who use these linguistic
constructs are being intentionally sexist in doing so, and as such nobody is
taking hurt or offense away from the use of "guys" to refer to a mixed-gender
group or anything like that. This is not an exercise in respecting others'
sensitivities so much as an effort to recognize the way our actions subtly
reinforce the problematic and undoubtedly biased power structures that exist
in our current culture. As others have pointed out in this thread, the
participants in Hacker School share a common interest refusing to reinforce
said power structures, and as such put rules in place to codify that
commitment to helping one another change the way they interact with the world.

As others have noted, these are not accusations--which would certainly not be
appropriate or productive to whip out in the middle of a meeting--but gentle
reminders amongst like-minded people to watch the way their words impact the
world around them.

~~~
GHFigs
It's subtly transphobic that you limited the discussion to men and women.

~~~
cfqycwz
That is very true and a mistake I do make pretty often but am working to be
more cognizant of. Framing the discussion around women and men does nothing to
further those who are identify as both or neither, nor those who are in
transition from one binary gender to the other.

~~~
thumbtackthief
Can everyone see what just happened here? This is all it has to be. It was a
cis-sexist remark. Now, I tend to make similar remarks and I also try to be
aware of them, and there's indeed a limit to what you can do. But this is _all
we're talking about_. OP was being facetious, but a subtle '-ism' was pointed
out, and the commenter just said, "Oops, yeah, working on that." And we all
happily move on with our lives.

------
ssfrr
It's really hard to predict the effect of social rules like these, which is
why Hacker School does their best to actually test them empirically and change
them if they're negatively impacting the environment.

A lot of people seem to be concerned about the chilling effects that these
policies _could_ have. This is a valid concern, as nobody wants to be in a
place where they're constantly second-guessing everything they say.

The nice thing is that we don't just have to speculate, and we can look at
what _has actually happened_ at Hacker School, and the feedback from those who
have actually experienced the environment seems overwhelmingly positive, both
for people who have been traditionally marginalized and for those who have
been unintentional marginalizers.

disclosure: I'm not a Hacker Schooler but I know Nick and Dave well. I've seen
first hand how deeply and genuinely they care about making Hacker School both
extremely inclusive and also free for open discussion and transparency.

~~~
wmj
How is banning the right to defend yourself against a baseless accusation in
any way "free for open discussion and transparency"?

------
invadedby
This is a throwaway account. I feel we are being invaded. The culture we used
to have didn't cared about _isms_ or whatever you want to call them. It
developed through text were it hardly matter who was on the other side of the
connection, only skills and thoughts mattered. Those were the good old days,
when we were free.

Now we are being invaded. We, like every other culture in the world, are ask
to not use certain language and not have certain thoughts. If we do not
comply, we are heretics. Only they don't use that term, they rather use some
_ism_.

The wheel of history is repeating. The control freaks still want to control,
they just changed one set of sins for another.

~~~
rev_bird
The "no debate" thing seems really odd and control-freakish on their part,
I'll give you that. But if you look at people trying to make tech a more
inclusive community and call it an "invasion," you're reflecting the exact
view that made movements like this pop up.

If "the good old days" were really that good, why have women been almost
intentionally excluded from IT until relatively recently? Do you mean "good"
for people in general, or "good" for you?

When you say "we are being invaded," who is "we"? White men? People who are
already "in"? More importantly, who is doing the invading? If women say "hey,
these are small, tacitly accepted things in tech culture that make people
uncomfortable," do you seriously think that statement is persecuting you?
They're not trying to control your thoughts, they're trying to get you to be
less of an asshole.

~~~
invadedby
>why have women been almost intentionally excluded from IT until relatively
recently?

I have never excluded women. Also IT, tech, hackers are not interchangeable
terms.

>Do you mean "good" for people in general, or "good" for you?

I meant good for hackers. People with a certain world view, goals and sense of
humor.

>When you say "we are being invaded," who is "we"?

Again, hackers. We never cared for race nor sexuality.

>who is doing the invading?

Control freaks.

>They're not trying to control your thoughts, they're trying to get you to be
less of an asshole.

If anything, this rules make it easier to be an asshole.

~~~
rev_bird
You say you've never excluded women, but you are aggressively dismissing an
attempt -- it seems, mostly from women -- at improving what they perceive as
sexist undertones in the workplace.

If someone says "hey, we should work on addressing this sexism," and the
response is, "be quiet, there isn't any sexism, you just hate fun," _that
seems pretty stinking sexist_ , doesn't it? Dismissing someone's concerns by
saying they aren't real doesn't address the concerns, it just sweeps them
under the rug because they aren't perceived as being important enough to give
a shit about.

If some group has evolved office slang that includes saying "Quit being a
ginger" to people who make dumb mistakes, and then that group hires some
redheaded dude, wouldn't it be within his rights to say "hey guys, it's kind
of weird to use 'ginger' as a euphemism for 'dumbass'"? Yeah, maybe he's
"invading" and stepping on the group's ability to insult people at the expense
of other groups, but it doesn't mean he's _wrong_.

~~~
wmj
> If someone says "hey, we should work on addressing this sexism," and the
> response is, "be quiet, there isn't any sexism, you just hate fun," _that
> seems pretty stinking sexist,_ doesn't it?

No.

Replace sexism with unicorns and reread your premise.

~~~
rev_bird
That's silly -- a unicorn's presence is, for the most part, a measurable
binary, it's either there or it isn't. Sexism is subjective, or at least more
up for debate than "is the unicorn in the room or is it not."

If somebody says, "hey, this is some bad sexism," that's a lousy argument,
because it's a vague statement that can't be proven either way. You could
respond with "no it isn't, shhh" and it would be just as reasonable a rebuttal
as any other.

But if someone says "these are things I think contribute to an unnecessarily
exclusionary environment, here's why it should change," then I think it's
disingenuous to just say "meh, no" without addressing the concerns. It's
basically someone saying, "I think my opinions are being written off without
being properly discussed," and responding with "That's not true, discussion
over, it's written off." There's got to at least be a discussion, no?

~~~
wmj
> Sexism is subjective,

No, it isn't.

If you believe you have an actionable claim, bring it to court.

If you don't (and you know that you don't) you have no right to shame and
defame people, while hiding behind some bullshit policy that prevents them
from defending themselves.

------
streptomycin
_Although our employees are diverse on some axes, we 're 90% white. There are
also class barriers to attending Hacker School - while Hacker School is free,
living in New York for three months is not._

I can't help but laugh sometimes. Good thing all the rich white women feel
comfortable!

But seriously, how is it possible to have so few Asians? Usually the "problem"
is that there are far too many. Maybe we need affirmative action for Asians,
for once?

~~~
thumbtackthief
The employees--of which there are 7 or 8, I believe--are 90% white. Hardly a
decent sample size. The attendees are much more diverse.

~~~
streptomycin
Good catch. That should be an easier problem to solve. If a few of them just
volunteer to give their jobs to minorities, that will do wonders for
diversity.

------
jraines
What's the difference between a "well, actually" and correcting someone's
misunderstanding -- or rather, when is it not welcome? My understanding is
that it's when someone parachutes into a conversation uninvited to correct
someone, but if I was in a learning setting like Hacker School, I feel like I
would welcome that from fellow students or instructors.

~~~
floil
A well-actually occurs when someone's understanding is 90% correct, and
someone comes along and says, heroically, "you're entirely wrong, because of
this missing 10%". When iterated this kind of grandstanding erodes the
confidence of someone who's working with a partial understanding, which in
truth is all of us.

~~~
mcguire
Particularly if the missing 10% is completely unrelated to the situation under
discussion.

"Ok, so the client contacts the server and receives the result, but half of
the result is missing, so...."

"Well, actually, the client uses DNS to look up the server's address first."

"Ok, thanks. Now I know."

A well-done well-actually is a brilliant demonstration of superiority.

------
bshimmin
It's really heartening that this has gone down like a lead balloon here.

Seriously, anyone who manages to take offence at a mixed group being greeted
with "you guys" really needs to find something better to do. It doesn't
consciously or unconsciously make anyone's life worse. It's just a couple of
words that are a convenient greeting.

~~~
Zikes
I once had a foreign friend comment on the unfortunate lack of a plural form
for "you" in English.

We Southerners tried to solve that problem ages ago with "y'all" but the rest
of the country apparently doesn't care for it.

~~~
bshimmin
Well, going back a few centuries further, we used to have thou/thee
(nominative/objective singular) and ye/you (nominative/objective plural). For
some reason we ended up with the plurals being used as the singulars and no
proper plurals at all.

------
cjf4
At a certain point don't you have to trust people to be adults?

If someone's being a "subtle" racist, they're just being racist, and you can
deal accordingly (likewise for the rest of the "subtlisms"). Beyond that, if
you want people to act with maturity, you have to treat them like adults,
which these rules certainly don't do.

~~~
davidbalbert
I'm one of the founders of Hacker School. We care tremendously about treating
people like adults[1].

If you think the social rules don't treat people like adults, you're
fundamentally misunderstanding them. The purpose of the rules is to make us
all aware of the ways that we can unintentionally frustrate and hurt each
other, not to shame people. The rules are not enforced top down, nor do you
get in trouble if you break one. The way you treat a person like an adult is
by being honest with them when they make you feel frustrated or uncomfortable
and having an adult conversation about it.

Our job is to build an environment where everyone at Hacker School feels safe
to focus on becoming a better programmer. I don't think you could find a
single Hacker Schooler who would disagree that the social rules made for a
better environment, and there've been well over 350 so far.

[1] cf. [https://www.hackerschool.com/blog/28-treating-people-like-
ad...](https://www.hackerschool.com/blog/28-treating-people-like-adults)

------
doctorstupid
Sounds like a cult-ism.

------
api
I ask this as a general question to all of tech culture, not to just this
particular setting:

What about subtile elitism?

It's one of the biggest subtile -isms I've run into. If you didn't go to a top
ten university, you're sort of in a lower echelon in the tech world. In
practice this subtilely selects for people from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds and/or people who have an "academic-oriented" learning style as
opposed to an autodidact or self-directed learning style. It also contributes
to America's regional class system... the top ten schools are by and large on
the coasts. If you're from, say, Kansas or Ohio you are less likely to attend
one of them than if you're from California or Massachusetts.

My impression for a long time has been that a significant chunk of the tech
world is a top ten universities only club full of Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc.
graduates hiring, funding, and promoting other top university graduates. You
could play a drinking game on sites like AngelList: take a shot every time
someone lists "attended MIT" or "graduated from Stanford" as their _sole
qualification_ for being a founder or seeking a job.

Racism and sexism definitely exist, but from what I've seen socioeconomic
elitism is the most powerful discriminatory -ism in the tech world. It's not
an either-or thing of course. It just adds yet another barrier that outsiders
must overcome. Barriers are kind of additive... each barrier reinforces the
other pre-existing barriers by adding another point of resistance.

I've got to admit that this is a personal gripe. I'm from the flyover country,
and I'm also not an academic type. I hated school for the most part. I just
don't learn that way. But for some reason listing things like "has single-
handedly conceived, designed, implemented, and shipped the following
products..." or "taught myself 6502 assembly language at the age of ten using
only the appendix of the Commodore 64 extended manual" just doesn't carry the
same weight as "graduated from Stanford." Even if I could say "graduated with
honors from the University of Cincinnati," I doubt this would carry near as
much oomph as "attended MIT" even if my grades at MIT were poor.

I can't imagine being female or black/hispanic _and_ not having the top ten
degree. I feel like without "MIT" or "Stanford" I have to be twice as smart
and work twice as hard. It feels like it's exponential. If I were not white
and male I'd have to work... what... sixteen times as hard?

Edit: HN won't let me comment on this thread any more, so I'll put my
responses here:

Re: elite universities equalizing admissions: no, it doesn't matter. There are
300+ million people in America and 7+ billion on Earth. Your odds of getting
"tapped" by one of these kingmakers is vanishingly small regardless of how
smart you are or how hard you work. Tweaking the selection bias of a tiny
choke point does not change the overall size of that gate.

Re: the thread in general: whenever these kinds of threads come up, I find
myself disagreeing with both the PC police and the hordes of right-wingers
that materialize out of the ether. I really say a pox on both their houses.
The wingers are hopelessly naive about the realities of discrimination. The PC
police sort of have their hearts in the right place, but the problem is that
PC stuff addresses the wrong causes. Women don't find it uncomfortable to work
in tech because of phrases like "man up" or "hey guys." They find themselves
excluded for more subtile reasons of cliquishness and in-group selection.
These cliquish mechanisms are the same ones that give rise to top ten
university bias, racial bias, cultural bias, etc. It's a microcosmic
manifestation of what on the larger social stage is called the "old boy
network." Playing language police is a lot easier than trying to _really_
break up the cliques. The latter is incredibly difficult, as humans are tribal
and cliquish by nature.

Still unable to post. I'm not going to forcefully assert some kind of soft-
banning since as far as I know I'm being fooled by randomness, but I have
noticed that "you are posting too fast" tends to appear in a way that seems
uncorrelated to how fast I'm actually posting. Maybe it's just a strange
algorithm with weird edge case behaviors. But... I did want to post this:

[http://www.broadstreetreview.com/cross-
cultural/Demise_of_An...](http://www.broadstreetreview.com/cross-
cultural/Demise_of_Antioch_College)

It is highly relevant, as I think it illustrates how PC policing can lead to a
kind of "Animal Farm" scenario. While the rhetoric might be all about
diversity, the reality is that diversity rhetoric can be used as another
mechanism for the real power clique to maintain its dominance.

~~~
pgbovine
_If you 're from, say, Kansas or Ohio you are less likely to attend one of
them than if you're from California or Massachusetts._

While that might be true, there's also a population density issue. CA, NY, and
MA have large urban populations, so more students are likely to attend those
elite colleges.

That said, I know for a fact that admissions officers and student volunteers
from these schools literally spend months driving around the country to
recruit prospective students from traditionally underrepresented states. They
are well aware of this perception of elitism and want to combat it. One of my
good friends from MIT was from Montana. (Yeah, anecdotes != data, but this
issue you mentioned is very legitimate and something that Top 10 universities
are actively trying to address.)

~~~
hyperpape
I find your optimism surprising:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/opinion/elite-colleges-
are...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/opinion/elite-colleges-are-as-
foreign-as-mars.html). The evidence is still there that underprivileged
students don't go to elite colleges at the rates that they could qualify or
afford them.

------
thumbtackthief
I'm going to say one last thing and then move on with my life. It seems that
most of the dissent revolves around asking that debates about when these
things are pointed out be kept private.

So, I got almost no work done today, and I'm all sorts of grouchy and
irritable because of this discussion. I probably didn't convince anyone, and
no one convinced me. So what did this debate accomplish? Who feels better now?
All HS wants to do is keep this sort of nonsense from happening. Person A says
something, Person B objects, Person A either apologizes or doesn't, and they
move on. If they really need to discuss, they don't bring in People C through
Z and ruin their days and productivity as well. Whichever side you're on, that
seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Furthermore, we all make innocuous comments that are ignorant of another
group's situation. When someone asks me about my wife, I don't flip out and
call them a homophobe for assuming I'm straight. But if they fight me when I
point it out and refuse to acknowledge the fact that maybe they could stand to
broaden their experience, I start to wonder why they're fighting me so much
and what prejudices they're hiding.

These rules work in Hacker School. They work because they're lightweight and
no one feels like a terrible person for breaking them. If other communities
are organically adopting them because the structure has been successful, I
don't understand why you'd fight it so much.

------
fred_durst
I think Hacker School's own words about why they no longer give feedback is a
great example of what happens when one hyper analyzes the context and
connotation of everything a person says and does.

[https://www.hackerschool.com/feedback](https://www.hackerschool.com/feedback)

Eventually, everyone stops communicating and just says nothing to avoid the
possibility of saying the wrong thing.

~~~
mmcwilliams
I think it merely emphasizes that doing something "right" is hard and that
sometimes over promising leads to less-than-ideal interactions for two parties
at once. The page you links to essentially says, "we didn't like doing it and
people didn't like receiving it." There is nothing wrong with wanting to give
quality feedback rather than a hasty response that communicates dismissal.

------
thesz
"First, we want marginalized people to feel welcome, not like they have to
defend their presence."

I believe this is wrong. Catering to marginalized people do not make those
people less marginalized. In fact, it can make situation worse:
[http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-
Intended...](http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended-
Universities/dp/0465029965)

I think that one should provide insistence on some important criteria
evaluation instead of banning something outright.

This is from basic psychology - provide positive idea to focus on.

------
ojbyrne
I thought the significant absence of "age-ism" in the lists of biases to be a
somewhat unsubtle "-ism." Because, you know old white men can't be the victim
of bias, they're the enemy.

------
j-m
Good God, this is why I changed my OkCupid profile to omit the fact that I
work at a tech startup.

A bit dishonest, to be sure, but I just want to have a chance to demonstrate
in person that I'm not the kind of insensitive, entitled dickbag that makes
comments like the ones in this thread.

Downvote away, guys, because hey, I'm engaging in some SHAMING here. Frankly,
you _should_ be ashamed of yourselves.

~~~
drz
> I just want to have a chance to demonstrate in person that I'm not the kind
> of insensitive, entitled dickbag

You demonstrated the exact opposite just now.

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
Seems to me that if you say something
racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, then there are a couple
possibilities.

Either (a) you meant it or (b) you didn't mean it. If (b), a gentle nudge from
a Hacker School pal is good, in the same sense of a friend telling me my fly
is open. If (a), well, fuck you.

~~~
wmj
Or (c) what the other person claims to be
racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. isn't, at all, and this is simply
the other person's way of "Well, actually."'ing you, except not even
pedantically, but completely baselessly.

------
pessimizer
This is an impossible rule to enforce, even lightly, when large portions of
the population don't even recognize that those classes of prejudice exist,
_especially_ within them or their friends, their family (except their
grandparents, which I hear about a lot), their class, their culture, or even
their country.

As everybody knows on the internet: _The real bigotry is pointing out
bigotry._

A real solution is to have an opinion as an organization about specific
classes of offense, and a process to deal with them. Not saying what an "-ism"
is seems like the opposite of that plan. Instead of creating a minefield,
build a path. Kick out anyone who doesn't follow it after having been warned.

Will you be reprimanded for saying something about Libertarians? If not, how
about Democrats or Republicans? If not, how about war spending, religion, oil
pipelines, or Social Security? Be specific about what the policy prohibits,
and why the organization has drawn its particular line.

------
pbreit
Really, there has to be a rule about not debating what an "-ism" is?? This
seems a little much for a coding seminar. How about "Don't be a Jerk" or
nothing at all.

~~~
mcguire
True, 'cause, after all, the _last_ thing jerks want is to spend an hour or so
presenting arguments and evidences that they aren't _really_ jerks, after such
as been pointed out to them.

------
lackbeard
It seems almost abusive to foster an environment wherein one can accuse
another openly but that other cannot respond openly.

------
PeterGriffin
I'm sorry, but I'm starting to get a bit sick of Hacker Schools constant
whining about rules.

If you want to encourage a specific culture you do this by starting with a
small set of people who have this culture in their bones, then growing
_slowly_ and assimilating more people into that culture, addressing deviations
_swiftly_ and letting people get back to their work afterwards, without
skipping a beat.

Not by writing manuals, and then stressing everyone with looooong, reaaaaally
long and exhausting "we need to talk" style posts, where we hold hands, talk
about how it's so difficult to open your mouth and say something that's not
offensive, and how we're far from perfect, and in fact, we're all sinners.

It's not that the intent is wrong. But this way of going about it is _so
extremely taxing_ on everybody, creating an atmosphere where everything people
say is judged on the "-isms" scale.

It means when you talk, you're terrified of what you're saying.

When you listen, you listen for someone to say something so you can point your
finger at them.

~~~
pessimizer
What's the difference between your proposal and a policy of starting as a
closely knit monoculture, and only accepting people that share that culture?
Isn't that exactly what you should be trying to avoid?

~~~
PeterGriffin
No, why would this be something to try to avoid? Sexism and racism _is_ a kind
of cultural trait, I hope you realize that.

A culture may be selective on very different criteria. It can _easily_ be
blind to gender, race, age, religion, nation and many more, yet have certain
very specific values. And letting people in who have the opposite values are
toxic to that culture.

You can't have a culture that's "open to everything". It means you have no
culture, you just adopt the zeitgeist unmodified. Everything goes. If this was
the goal, this thread wouldn't exist.

~~~
mcguire
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment.

Are you trying to say that the field of technology development in general or
programming specifically would be toxicly harmed if certain groups of people,
identified by "gender, race, age, religion, nation and many more", are allowed
in to it? Or are you trying to say that objecting to people attacking others
on the basis of gender, race, age, religion, nationality, etc., would be toxic
to the culture of the field?

~~~
PeterGriffin
Neither. I'm not sure how I can help you, maybe try reading it slower.

------
jordigh
Mostly unrelated, but I wanted to say that I really enjoyed Kaptur's analysis
of Python's import statement during this year's Pycon:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS5kXzbsLLQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS5kXzbsLLQ)

------
wmj
The right to accuse someone without giving the accused the right to self
defense is most certainly not a subtle -ism.

It's fascism.

