Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Racism at a gaming company (qu33riousity.tumblr.com)
368 points by plinkplonk on Oct 2, 2012 | hide | past | web | favorite | 414 comments



"We don’t even tolerate people brining up concerns of racism here." Translation: "we don't want to admit that we have a toxic, racist corporate culture so we're going to blame the messenger."

The emphasis here is on racism, but there's a ton of casual sexism -- and I'd be surprised if ageism wasn't present, too.

This is, at best, a company where HR have taken their eye off the ball. More likely, there are serious institutional failings (and probable harrassment lawsuits coming down the pipe in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... if they don't do something about the corporate culture fast).

Note: this is me trying to stay dispassionate and non-angry. If I was the author of this piece I'd be incandescent. Props to him for staying calm and documenting this stuff rather than simply walking out. Or exploding.


> Note: this is me trying to stay dispassionate and non-angry. If I was the author of this piece I'd be incandescent. Props to him for staying calm and documenting this stuff rather than simply walking out. Or exploding

I couldn't even make it to the end, I think I just managed to read 80% of the whole piece, I'm pretty, pretty f.ing mad, and I've never even been to the States.

A little OT: And while we're on this, I guess this is a moment as good as any to get it off my chest, that is to say that nasty s.it like this happens not only in the States, but here in (Eastern) Europe, too.

I work in a small company, I'm IT, and around last week or so one of my (female, white) colleagues just out of the blue proffered somth. like "I'd kill all the gipsies, they're not human". I (white male, early 30s) at first tried to take it easy, made a little fun of her, to see if she was serious (she was), and then 10-15 minutes later I confronted her directly. The part that did it for me, at which even now, when I'm remembering the whole thing, makes me angry, it's the "they're not human" part. She is a really nice person otherwise, happily married, no children yet, but yet she said that nasty phrase as the most natural thing ever.


A friend once advised me, to seriously and intently ask such people "what the fuck is wrong with you?" (and possibly shake your head a bit in a confused mildly disgusted manner). Then walk away, because whatever they have to say is not going to be worth your time.

The one time I applied this, it netted me a rather sincere apology half an hour later, so I guess it has some merit in at least some of the situations.

(note that I was not in the group being discriminated against, I don't think it'd be a good approach if I were)


I doubt they have an HR department yet...


About 1/3 of the way down...

I ask if that’s the word he used verbatim, and Mike says yes. I say if he wants to say that to me I’ll take that comment and all the rest to HR because I’ve been documenting everything racist he’s said, and Mike nods and says “yeah” and “ok” like he understands or like he cares.

And the "HR Dept" could be just 1-2 people.


From the OP:

Also, at some point after this conversation took place, one of the women looked at my prized necklace and said “Hey, that looks like a calculator, is that a calculator?”

I said “um no, it’s a necklace, it’s African, from Nairobi.”

And she replies “Oh, huh…..well, it looks like a calculator.”

Dumbwhite------

If this is an accurate recollection, the author is a seriously disturbed person who should not be in this or any other workplace. If this is not an accurate recollection... I'm not sure the conclusion is any different.

Certainly there are workplace shootings where the perpetrator appears to have a very similar attitude - the Omar Thornton case, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Distributors_shooting

Kixeye is obviously a company with a corporate culture in which people vigorously insult each other in a typical young male style. A similar institution is the US military - at least at the enlisted level. Race relations in the military are and always have been excellent, so perhaps the hypothesis that coarse humor is the cause of racial hostility could use a little more exploring.

I wouldn't want to work at a company like Kixeye, though. It's obviously an even worse fit for the OP. And that's not even to mention that this kind of office culture is actually illegal in our great nation, land of the free and home of the brave. This is irresponsible toward the investors, at least...


> If this is an accurate recollection, the author is a seriously disturbed person

So you're saying that an overly defensive reaction to someone misunderstanding a fashion object means he's likely to shoot the place up? That a guy gets systematically discriminated against at the workplace, and you're worried he's too angry about it? And that he might get violent about it because one single other person one time did? And that the U.S. military, which features numerous official directives against racial discrimination, is an aptly analogous institution?


This isn't "typical young male style"; it's typical douchebag style. If only they had the wit to at least be funny. Sometimes witty charm can go a long way. But these guys just seem like boring, unintelligent, run-of-the-mill idiots. Oh, and I wouldn't even dare call this "humor", coarse or not. You've now insulted the rich, long history of the term.


I like how this fixates on the smallest offense and considers it representative and most relevant for armchair psychological analysis.


Reverse the races and look at how you'd judge a black equivalent. This one "smallest offense" would color your perception of the person permanently.


Should I assume the white person is Italian, Irish, German, Russian, or what?

"Whiteness" is defined in contrast to a person's blackness. You can't talk about racism against whites without first acknowledging a previous racism by whites.


And that's not even to mention that this kind of office culture is actually illegal in our great nation, land of the free and home of the brave

Are you sarcastically implying that this kind of office culture should be legal in a civilized society?


If I was the author of this piece I'd be incandescent

Reading this made me so angry... If I were a juror, I wouldn't convict the author for murdering the people in this post.

Edited to add: No actual murder has happened, nor should any actual murder happen. This was an overstatement meant to reflect outrage at injustice.


That's a pretty unacceptable viewpoint, especially as you have heard only one man's side of the story.


It's hyperbole meant to express my profound outrage at an apparently outrageous situation. To be clear, I do not endorse murder but when reading the article, I empathized with the author in a way that made me feel murderously angry.


Get a grip. Murderous rage isn't typically an acceptable response to things that upset you.


Murderous rage = being very angry. Not wanting to literally kill someone.


Metaphors are hard sometimes. I'm learning to be more cautious with them.


wtf?

I think this company is not such a great place to work... if you are black. Having mentioned that... uh... MURDER???

We should try to keep in mind that this company really may be no worse than the average SF company full of people accustomed to getting their own way. Oftentimes, people just don't know they are being offensive. It is not malice, so much as the obliviousness that accompanies any privilege. These people DO NOT deserve to die. I personally don't think anyone does.

People have a right to be disappointed here, but really, let's try to elevate the tone.


I totally agree that nobody deserves to die. I do not actually endorse murder, or any form of violent response to oppression.

As I stated earlier, I was being hyperbolic. I had a strong emotional response to the article and I made a joke about it. I did not mean to debase the quality of the conversation here and I regret the callous way I expressed what I said.


It's OK to make that kind of joke because nobody was murdered /sarcasm


Decoder ring for nerds who are unable to read past words like "neoliberal colonizer" without racing to the nearest TEXTAREA:

* A black coworker is singled out by another (non-black) coworker with "watch out for that guy, he’s trouble, he talks a lot of shit"

* Referring to a latino coworker, that same coworker suggests jokes: "Like ‘you’re a mexican whore’ or like ‘your mother’s a Mexican whore?"

* The black coworker is given a dictionary and told "I got this for you cause I know you speak ebonics."

* The latino coworker is then told "I would have gotten you one too but they didn’t have wetback to english"

* The author, who is black, is then told "Hey he’s dressed like Run DMC, does he know how to rap?" (The author is wearing a Pitchfork Media-compatible outfit including skinny jeans and a long-sleeved print t-shirt)

* The black coworker later informs the author that "Steve wanted me to let you know that we’re dressing too thuggish in the office and we need to dress in a way that reflects the company better". "Steve" is the previously-mentioned white guy, and also apparently a manager.

* After telling that coworker that he is considering telling HR about racism in his group, "Steve" takes him aside for a 1-1 meeting. The author is informed that any attire is acceptable except for baggy jeans. After hearing the author's complaints, "Steve" says, "Whoa whoa whoa, those comments you’re hearing aren’t racist; they’re jokes", and then "The problem is that you’re too sensitive. You need to check all that at the door before you come here to work", and finally "We don’t even tolerate people brining up concerns of racism here.".

* Later, a women asks whether the pendant the author is wearing, which is from Nairobi, is "a calculator".

* "Steve" later informs the author, "it’s ok to make jokes about slavery because that’s over". Then, "Also, you should be grateful that your ancestors went through slavery."

Peppered throughout the post are cultural signs and signifiers that mark the author as an advocate for a fairly specific set of political and social beliefs. A reader could be excused for having concerns that the author was not an objective witness. On the other hand, those signifiers are so obvious that you could also question whether someone who had set out to unfairly tar the company would put them into the post.

Apart from the comment about the pendant, any one of the comments listed above would be a firing offense here.


"I agree, but some of his content will be a barrier for some people. I'm sure if the tone of the post was milder, most of the comments here would be supportive."

-- too typical a response

"Peppered throughout the post are cultural signs and signifiers that mark the author as an advocate for a fairly specific set of political and social beliefs."

-- completely irrelevant to assessing the facts of the case

As a white male, I'm very disappointed by how many in the HN community have responded to this story. The victim- and let me emphasize, this individual is a victim- has every right to feel and express any number of hostile feelings toward the perps involved and, furthermore, has the right to express his frustration at how racist behavior was openly exhibited in front of so many employees, with no consequences whatsoever. In fact, you have to wonder why none of his white colleagues stood up and objected to some of the more colorful remarks made in the presence of others. Is it really that difficult to understand why he might perceive all the whites in his office as a$$holes? His story isn't merely an indictment of a few managers, but of a culture (and yes, a white culture) that absolutely tolerated racism both at an individual and collective level. These incidents didn't only occur behind a closed door. Is or was this culture present in only one SF company? After what this individual was subjected to, you have to be incredibly small minded to feel offended by the fact that his language reveals frustration or antagonism toward whites.

By the way, I've also seen racism exhibited toward Asian immigrants- not the rockstar programmers matriculated in the US- but recent immigrants holding lower level positions. Let's not pretend that racism doesn't exist in SF by brushing off depictions of racism as a consequence of intrinsic racism on the part of the accuser.


Sigh. It's classic derailment. "Your damaging your cause by being so aggressive". "You're seeing problems where none exist".

You get the same answers when you debate women's issues. And I have no doubt any other minority's issues, too. It's so common there's even a bingo card for it: http://tumblinfeminist.tumblr.com/post/12171070300/notasking...


The existence of bingo cards is not an argument, even if patio has made it so easy for us to generate them. You may find the following article interesting: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html

> This tendency reaches its most florid manifestation in the "ideological bingo games". See for example "Skeptical Sexist Bingo", feminist bingo, libertarian troll bingo, anti-Zionist bingo, pro-Zionist bingo, and so on. If you Google for these you can find thousands, which is too bad because every single person who makes one of these is going to Hell.


That article is a waste of time. It rails against poor arguments and a lack of insight with... poor arguments and a lack of insight. For umpteen pages. For some reason we're supposed to hear out people who start an argument with "I'm not racist but..."

If you find yourself saying "I'm not racist but..." you shouldn't be trying to justify yourself and come up with reasons why the other person should hear you out. You should immediately stop and think about what you're saying, because chances are that you are a bigot, and all the argument in the world isn't going to change that.

The existence of those sorts of bingo cards is because these arguments come up over and over again. It's a useful tool to help deal with bigots.


That article is one in a series. Perhaps I was wrong and it is not clear or well-argued without the context of the broader series to draw from. It's a shame because it is actually painstaking in its argumentation and attention to nuance, and by far the most insightful series of its kind that I've ever read.

When you say "chances are you are a bigot" you may technically be correct in the sense that from a random population of "I'm not a racist but" statements, more than 50% of them are said by bigots (in fact, I would probably estimate this much higher, as bigots say it more frequently, in my experience). As for my-literal-self, and almost everyone who is reading these comments (well educated, left-leaning startup enthusiasts), I have significant other evidence that I have to weigh against that proposition (i.e. my recollection of my lifetime's past events and explicit knowledge of my views and beliefs), so if I were ever inclined to use such a phrase I wouldn't actually be making a bigoted statement. Unfortunately, some people who are less thoughtful and less capable of a nuanced understanding of argumentation would immediately turn off their brains and assume whatever this counterfactual self said next was bigoted. People like that have bad rhetorical hygiene and arguing with them should be avoided if you don't want to contract memetically transmitted diseases.

Saying that bingo cards are a "useful tool" is doing a disservice to the word tool. They are, if not actively harmful, merely a form of entertainment, and no more a tool than Star Trek VI.


> "it is actually painstaking in its argumentation and attention to nuance"

No it's not. It doesn't follow anything through to a conclusion, it just berates people who attack strawmen, or who dismiss others' arguments out of hand, whether that dismissal is warranted or not.

Just taking the "I'm not racist but.." argument on that post: are you really saying that there is no other way to phrase your argument? It's guaranteed to cause a reaction in everybody with an opinion on the issue and it's somehow their fault for not giving your argument proper attention or missing a nuance somewhere?

And then you complain about bad rhetorical hygiene. State your case in a way that your audience can understand and engage with it, and you'll get a better response.


What conclusion were you looking for exactly? It was an empirical recounting of events, peppered with an analysis of why the events are so frustrating for the author. Did you expect The Essay That Ends Racism?


I was refering to xanados' article, not the OP: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html


The existance and popularity of bingo cards can tell you how common certain responses are. It is also an attempt to draw your attention to how common the response are, and to mock common responses that fit a mould.

So yes, the existance of bingo cards helps back up the claim that this is "classic derailment".


I'm not really sure what that article is saying, maybe "Placeholder / bingo card arguments make it hard to have a rational intellegent debate/conversation". Which is technically true, it does make it hard to have an intelligent conversation.

However, in the vast majority of conversations about topics like this, the debate is not intelligent. The same old tied tropes and clichés come out. Many different people have commented "But he's racist too!" (on a recent post about gender at a tech conference many people dismissed the author for being angry).


I just downloaded a bingo card from Freerepublic. Say some more stuff.


I'm too cynical to even manage disappointment, sorry. HN is... well, it's very white. I'm not so much talking about the people who comment here, but for the most part we're discussing companies founded and run by white people, funded by all-white venture capital organisations, with a largely-white employee base. Given that, it's sadly not surprising that many commenters here have really fucked up views on racism because there's no reason why they wouldn't. It's not like there's even any way to tell 99% of the time because the subject hardly ever comes up.


One phenomenon I've seen a lot is racism/sexism/prejudice of some other sort given free rein because there is no self criticism in that area.

Because only stupid people are sexist and racist. We are smart, ergo, we cannot be sexist or racist.


To me it is a faith-induced form of ignorance - that because you have mastered one of the tiny, tiny subsets of all the world's technical knowledge, you believe yourself to have similar ability in other realms of knowledge as well. Morality and ability become one and the same, especially after the conditioning of hundreds or thousands of pissing matches in which you attempt to prove the same point, over and over: "I'm right and you're wrong." Logic becomes one's drug, because it lets you win and be powerful. Other flaws don't matter because you can avoid those discussions(if you're a white, straight cis male).

But really, it's relatively easy to find people who know a lot of things and can work through deep logic. "Big-picture" judgment and perspective is a lot harder to come by.


Otherwise known as lesswrong-itis.


Here here. Similar replies come up when the topic of sexism comes up, for the same reasons, majority of people here are male.


Regardless of how pissed off he may have been, you don't fight racism with more racism. All that does is exacerbate the situation and hurt your credibility. Calling someone a dumbwhite* might feel good but does nothing for your cause.

I've always believed the correct response to racism is to educate. Educate his coworkers on the origin and significance of his necklace and why they shouldn't equate the way he dresses with being a thug. And in this case, where it is systemic and tolerated, appeal to a higher authority such as HR and the court system.


A significant part of what you're missing is that the function of the actions of the racist manager is to rob the author of political power. Racism works in some pretty subtle subtle ways - by painting the author as 'that aggressive black guy', the manager has already clipped his wings.

You may have also missed this line: After years of arguments with white men (and white women), watching white men (and white women) move away from me when I start to talk about oppression (i.e. what life as a poor black queer is like), I know when to pick and chose my battles

Can you not see just how exhausting it would be to have to constantly explain and justify yourself?


It's not his responsibility to "fight racism", it's the responsibility of his employers to provide a non-racist workplace. Your "correct response" is of course ideal, but imagine how draining it would be for someone to attempt to change an corporate culture 200+ people. It's unfair to expect that from an someone whose only wants to not have to endure severe racism at their 9-5.


I agree it's not his responsibility (but explained why he should anyways in response to larrybobsf).

I also said that in this case, where it was systemic and tolerated, he made the right decision to escalate it to HR and the court system who actually have the power to do something about it.


Sure, only when it's your boss being racist, you don't have many other options than shut up or get fired. French white man here, apalled by 70% (yah, i did the math) of that whole thread. I don't care being called a colonialist because that's true, my country was a colonial empire, so was the UK, and so is the US now, with 200 years of history to catch up (irak anybody?). Laws against racism might be enforces, one day, in the US, who knows. It even happenned in moste European countries.

This guy did the right thing : stand up and talk. Obviously he cares more about telling "the world" than being patted on the shoulder. In other words, he somewhat did it the "black panthers" way, and as much as I like Martin Luther King and gandi, i don't believe you gain rights without fighting. For real.

Why that reaction of mine ? Cause it remembers me an episode of my youth, when i xas living with my Commando father (yeah, like your marines) in africa, and was the only white guy who stood up for a Malgache girl who was being bashed by a bunch of white guys, everyday on our way to school. I got beaten in front of the whole bus for about 15 minutes by the bunch of white racists guys. The driver, a black guy from Cameroon came to me the next day, and told me that he was glad i had to loose some teeth, because otherwise he would have lost his job.

So : racists are punks, a nuisance. I don't care about educating them. There are laws for them. I will fight them if i can, and yes, i hate them all :) (but i do like heavy metal, perl and javascript, yeas i do)


The employee in the hostile work environment doesn't say that he said "Dumbwhite" - it's an internal response and doesn't indicate that he's fighting racism with racism. Objectively based on the incident presented, it's a simple statement of fact that the co-worker, is dumb, white and a .

It's not the job of members of minority groups to educate members of majority groups on their culture. People who aren't members of minority cultures should make an effort to self-educate and work against the grain of systemic discrimination.


Regardless of where he said it, "dumbwhite*" is a phrase with racist intent. Objectively based, "fucking black people" is just a reference to people with a dark skin color but in the context of the English language we all know what it means.

I agree it's not his job to educate, and he shouldn't have to. But in reality, most racists are not going to educate themselves. If they did, they probably wouldn't be racists. So if he actually wants to see a positive change and stop Steve from making racist comments, his best bet is to try and educate Steve himself.


This article might just do that. The article itself already talks about how Steve was completely dismissing everything he had to say. But in written form with a semi-anonymous target, the article will likely filter back to the company and to Steve. In written form, the author gets to say everything he wants to say and why. If Steve reads it, in all likelihood he will dismiss it, but it may also provide a nugget around which he may start to see what he was doing.


There's a difference between racism and prejudice. You need to learn it.


> it's an internal response and doesn't indicate that he's fighting racism with racism.

HHAHAHA WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING?


There are several definitions of racist talk, one is essentially "making references to someone's race and implying everyone in that group is the same (in some attribute)". Lots of people like this definition because it's nice and simple and it means black people in the USA can be racist to white people if they say things like "Dumbwhite".

There's another definition, which is talk that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races. Right now, if modern USA life was a video game, "white male" would be an easier difficulty level than "black male". There are statistically less problems for the "white male" group. Racist talk is talk that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/white/black/g and make it just as racist.

So no, it's more racist to say "dumbblack" than "dumbwhite"


I tend to agree with you regarding the relevance of the author's politics to the kernel of the story, but that relevance and the author's overall credibility is an elephant gleefully pooping all over the room, so we might as well not ignore it.


Brilliant analysis.

I am one of the readers who had deep concern for the truthfulness of these observations. If they are true, then he got screwed, royally, and should sue.

Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.


The things you think sap his credibility add to his credibility for me; if he was making things up, it would have been easy for him to leave his own politics and sensitivities out of the post to make it more painful for his ex-employer. To me, it reads like he's just venting to his peers. We're the ones making a big deal out of it.


Yes: if his "plan" was to defame an employer, he'd want to conceal his views (which, again, are completely irrelevant here) as opposed to express them in a transparent fashion (which he does).

Finally, you have to wonder, how much of abuse the employer had to dish out to turn (judging from the picture) an apolitical gamer-hipster-nerd into an anti-colonial radical. I don't want to make this story about me, but as a secular Jew who immigrated from former USSR as a teen, I can say that experiencing racism firsthand tends to change your perspective.


People who want to discredit somebody will use any convenient tactic. A decade ago, I bet you'd hear users citing the author's substance abuse problems and resulting instability because he admits to lighting up after work.


Yeah, just as long as that sort of shit isn't in his official complaint, it's not really an issue that he's peeved about it. But that's the sort of thing that a lawyer would seize upon to try and demonstrate that someone has a distorted perspective.

If I were his editor, I'd tell him to separate the, "Dumb white hipsters being ignorant", stuff from the, "Creating a hostile working environment", part of his story. As it is, it's mixed in and undermines the seriousness of the legitimately awful treatment he was subjected to.


In this situation perhaps it's most constructive to proceed with the conversation under the assumption that he honestly related his experiences, while acknowledging that we don't have a solid reason for believing him. We could run around in circles all day trying to reason things out -- for example, I could point out that exaggeration and embellishment are normal when people vent to their peers -- but we'd never get any closer to the truth. Unless we know him or the people he's talking about, we can't evaluate his credibility without making some unjustified assumption (such as the assumption that he's worse at lying than you are at spotting a lie,) but we can justify treating the story as honest on the grounds that it leads to a more interesting conversation than treating it as a lie.


> Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.

What nails? You're treating his every statement as suspect by default based on the racial, sexual and political stereotype you are projecting onto him. Judging by the admittedly superficial evidence of your post history, you are a Randian libertarian with a stereotypical dislike of women and racial minorities who claim victimhood. You must be used to people automatically classifying you by a stereotype and refusing to engage with you. If only in that respect, you're exactly like him and others whose arguments you reject offhand.

Elsewhere in this thread you explain that your skepticism is based on personal experiences. Many people reading that will assume you're lying or that your view of what happened was warped. How does that make you feel? Like a victim of stereotyping? You may even write off those people as dumb liberal motherfuckers.


You're treating his every statement as suspect by default based on the racial, sexual and political stereotype you are projecting onto him.

The burden of proof for accusations of this nature (or any serious nature) should always be on the accuser, not the accused.


It's a blog post, not a legal document, so what do you expect? I have gotten independent albeit second-hand verification of a few of the episodes. Ignoring that, I still see nothing to warrant accusations of whining and lying. People yelling 'hypocrisy' and using it as evidence against his truthfulness are looking to rationalize their gut response, nothing more. Hypocrisy may be a weighty accusation against grandstanding moralists in the public square, but it has absolutely no relevance here.


[deleted]


also offtopic: 'voracious vocabulary' probably doesn't mean what you think ;-) (you're probably thinking 'voracious reader')

I like to use HL Mencken as inspiration.


Randian libertarian? Really? No, I'm actually quite moderate. I'm a left of center person here in the U.S., and my time in the deep south has made me keenly aware of how horrible the excesses of conservatism can be. However, my time in liberal areas of the nation (northern California, Massachussetts, etc.) has shown me how horribly wrong the classic ivory tower liberalism can go also. I don't dislike people victimized by discrimination. I just dislike systems in which discrimination is fixed by more discrimination. I also recognize how horribly wrong nanny state laws can go.

Look at California's renter protections. They go way, way beyond reason in dragging out an eviction process. As a result, people who would otherwise rent out properties do not, or do so at a much higher price to ensure that only high income people move into said properties. By protecting the poor people from landlord abuses, the result is that decent poor people who pay rent are punished by the indecent poor people who abuse the system and take advantage of squatter rights. Protections always, always come with a cost, hidden or not. I don't think (like Randians do) that this cost should ALWAYS be avoided and we should all go the path of John Galt fantasy land. I just think that too often, ivory tower liberals (by this I mean people who don't work in the private sector and confine themselves to academic and gov't advisory roles) don't see the costs of the protections they chase after, or don't consult with industry to find out what they truly are.

I will be voting for Obama this November. You know, because I hate minorities and women's rights and I worship Ayn Rand.


> Randian libertarian?

To make my point, I was jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence.

> You know, because I hate minorities and women's rights and I worship Ayn Rand.

I don't believe you do any of those things. But I do believe you unfairly prejudged him on insufficient information and that someone doing the same in reverse would come to those sorts of conclusions about you.


> Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.

Please understand that the anger such treatment (validly) brings about is incredibly hard to suppress.

In that situation it's really hard to walk the line between expressing your emotions in such a way that it evokes similar emotions in others and not expressing so much anger that you will be classified as just bitter and vindictive.


> Please understand that the anger such treatment (validly) brings about is incredibly hard to suppress.

And also, why should it be suppressed? Integration doesn't work if both parties pretend to be nice but are prepared to find a more underhanded way to stab each other in the back once the negotiations have ended.


Integration works fine if both parties pretend to play nice. The not nice people die off, and the young generation never thinks of being not nice.


This deserves an analysis far more nuanced than I'm able to deliver. How has the integration of Italians versus Irish gone in New York? I can't answer that, because I've never studied it. I suspect it went better than the integration of whites and blacks in the South. Why? I can't answer that for the same reason.

I suspect we're both right for different reasons under different circumstances, and it would be fascinating to actually go through the histories and anthropologies to understand what those reasons and circumstances might be.


Are you serious? Or just insensitive? And how many nails are needed until you can safely say he's in his coffin ready to be buried? The issue that I have with the whole "don't even go to college/university, just start a startup" is that most colleges/universities will teach you at least something about gender and racial issues. That's not to say everybody that goes through college doesn't come out racist at the end, but at least most people who aren't dense, come out with a bigger understanding of what issues there are for the less privileged, especially if they are not one of the less privileged. You seem to be in big hurry to discredit this guy, I would say you and other people like you just put a nail in your red-neck coffin.


I've been thinking about this a lot lately since I have a new roommate who went to art school instead of a four-year university and doesn't seem to have any idea when he's saying something racist.

People often seem to think that only STEM degrees teach real skills, but humanities and social sciences teach you to think critically about culture and society, and even though nobody's ever going to pay me to do that, I'd like to think the world's a better place for every person who's had their eyes opened a little bit. The disadvantage of course is that then afterwards, culture and society horrify you at every turn for the rest of your life.


And you just put a nail in your elitist class warmonger column for insinuating that a college education is needed for someone to be expected to be not racist.

This is getting silly.


"Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility."

So because he's upset that his pendant was mocked (in what sounds like a pretty assy way), he isn't credible?

What were the other nails?


I think he read the parent post as an indictment of the author and not a summary of valid issues with the company.

I know.


I would guess that the woman who stepped on the pendant land-mine had thought the pendant was some kind of Kenyan abacus. Or something. And phrased it very badly, because she sensed subconsciously that she was about to get her head bitten off for being a racist.

Naturally, she gets her head bitten off for being a racist...


Yo, based on the copious number of comments you've made addressing this I know you're super concerned about that single anecdote from within a larger context, but she didn't get her head bitten off, unless for some weird reason you're reading him as actually saying "Dumbwhite" out loud at her, despite it not being in quotes.


No, he's right. The basic principle here is, do not talk to "progressive" black people, because you are likely to say something innocuous that they interpret as highly offensive. That is the message being sent here.


Or maybe the basic principle is to try to understand the perspective of the person you're talking to. Don't speak defensively - be open and willing to acknowledge and apologize and correct yourself when a mistake you make is pointed out to you, rather than retreating into racial anxiety.

Progressive white people too frequently have a fear of saying the wrong thing because they're insecure with their racial views. Read more, gain perspective, learn how much you don't know about the experience of minorities, and then approach conversations with people of color with a deferential attitude.

Maybe that's too much work, but it's the price of tending to a multicultural society that is growing out of the ashes of a monocultural one and I think it's worth it.


The statements made to this person seem innocuous to you?


The calculator necklace thing is what I was referring to.

But I'm speaking from personal experience.


But I'm speaking from personal experience.

Yeah, you've really got to watch out for "progressive blacks" like me, we're trouble.


Again, I'm just recounting my personal experience.

FYI, I grew up and still live in the southern US, where race relations are an acknowledged problem, and where social protocols and culture are still more distinct across races than they are within them. And I'm already somewhat bad in general with social protocols.

So I'm not saying white people shouldn't talk to black people. I'm saying that, unfortunately,white people do feel uncomfortable talking to them sometimes, or at least, the bar is higher for meaningful social interaction. I think that's a shame, and unfortunately I don't know what to do about it.

But I do know that accusing white people of racism for clearly non-racist behavior, as with the calculator-necklace incident, is counterproductive, and (for me) reinforces needlessly distressful things I've experienced. That's what I was trying to get at with my earlier comment.


> The basic principle here is, do not talk to "progressive" black people

-- 6 hours later --

> So I'm not saying white people shouldn't talk to black people

Surely you can forgive _pius for assuming you meant what you said.


You're taking what I said out of context. I said:

The basic principle here is, do not talk to "progressive" black people, because you are likely to say something innocuous that they interpret as highly offensive. That is the message being sent here.

As I clarified in my last post, my point was that it is regrettable that the blogger "sent the message" he did.

By the way, when you talk about me forgiving _pius, you are obfuscating who is blaming who. I am on the receiving end of blame, not the giving end.


If you find yourself in the situation of the calculator-assuming woman, where you feel like you've made a comment that touches on cultural sensitivities, use the moment as a learning experience. Instead of leaving the awkward air, ask them what they are thinking. "oh sorry haha that was a weird assumption, what is it?" Asking to be educated is pretty much the opposite of the mansplaining / whitesplaining that is so painful to the author of qu33riosity, and is almost universally welcomed. A little humility goes a long way.


So you're saying he's deliberately but perhaps covertly telegraphing the message "white people, don't talk to me"?

Because if not, "don't talk to progressive blacks" is the message you took away not the one he sent.

> I am on the receiving end of blame, not the giving end.

Oh, for real? Who blamed you for what?

Going back and re-reading your previous post:

> But I do know that accusing white people of racism for clearly non-racist behavior,

It may be non-racist, but it's still culturally tone-deaf.

> as with the calculator-necklace incident, is counterproductive, and (for me) reinforces needlessly distressful things I've experienced.

Oh, weird, because the "calculator-necklace incident" probably reinforced some needlessly distressful (racist, dehumanizing, othering, outgroup-reinforcing) things for the author. Why should he make your distress a priority when you care none for his?


So you're saying he's deliberately but perhaps covertly telegraphing the message "white people, don't talk to me"?

No, I did not say that. I don't think he was sending that message deliberately. (As an aside, the message wasn't "don't talk to me.)

Oh, for real? Who blamed you for what?

You and _pius are clearly accusing me of racial insensitivity.

It may be non-racist, but it's still culturally tone-deaf.

I mean, I do think the "message" I claimed was being sent was stated overbroadly by me. But, for example, I definitely would not ever talk to a black person about their clothes if they were not wearing clothing I was familiar with, out of fear that they would be offended - even by a compliment. Even if I said something like, "That outfit looks really good on you," they'd like take my social awkwardness as a sign that I was somehow making fun of them (which I would never do). Or they'd consider me incapable of rendering a judgement about a style of fashion that I'm not familiar wth, and just be insulted.

Why should he make your distress a priority when you care none for his?

I never said that. In fact, if I didn't care about race relations and want them to be better, I wouldn't have commented in the first place. And I care about race relations because I care about people. I don't want anybody to be distressed.

needlessly distressful (racist, dehumanizing, othering, outgroup-reinforcing) things for the author

If you think the calculator incident was racist or dehumanizing, as described, then I can see why you would think I don't care about that guy's distress. But it was not racist or dehumanizing. It may have made the author feel like part of an "outgroup" as you say, but that was not intentional. At least as I recall the incident being described in the post. It was just some really naive person who made a mistake. I thought that was obvious from the description. And you may disagree with this, but if it was just a naive person who made a mistake about what the guy was wearing, it was not racism.

I'm not sure if I want to continue this discussion, but I will read any response and may or may not respond.


Way to make his point.


She just got her head bitten off on the public Internet. Some HR dude is probably looking for her right now.


I think you're seriously overestimating the amount of liquid in Kixeye's care cup for this guy's feelings.


A one-line comment of 'dumbwhite' while not being named now constitutes "having your head bitten off on the public internet"? Calm down, get some perspective.


I'm going to try and hijack this a little, just because I'm afraid it won't be seen anywhere else.

I don't have a problem with racist/sexist jokes. I do however have a sever issue with healthcare and quality of education being tied to your parents employment and property ownership. I think that is much, much more terrible, as it not only screws over the poor in general, but in particular it really fucks over black people/hispanics/immigrants specifically simply because they are on average much poorer.

I guess I'm just really upset over the huge fuss people make over the word nigger. It's an incredibly powerful word that taints anything it touches, and because of its association it becomes particularly hard for people in general to understand that the most racist things don't target the race of anyone, just their income level.

So, yes, I think the author did go through some stupid shit because his coworkers are assholes. However, they probably aren't racist. They look down on most of society.


> the most racist things don't target the race of anyone, just their income level.

This is basically a denial that actual racism is a serious problem. I think that's worse than saying the n-word a thousand times.

Even if Obamacare gives every black person free health insurance and also a pony, that's not going to make even a tiny dent in the racism that pervades our society, and saying that it will is just spreading ignorance (imo).

EDIT: Not that I'm saying our country's health care issues aren't totally messed up! Just that that's a different problem.


Here are the facts:

This is from Wikipedia on demographics of the poor in the USA: The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:[30] 9.9% of all non-Hispanic white persons 12.1% of all Asian persons 26.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race) 27.4% of all black persons.

Looks pretty bad for hispanics/black people, right?

Except it doesn't have the population breakdown...

White Americans (non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino) are the racial majority, with an 72% share of the U.S. population, per 2010 US Census.[6] Hispanic and Latino Americans compose 15% of the population, making up the largest ethnic minority.[5] Black Americans are the largest racial minority, composing nearly 13% of the population.

so here are some facts: .72 * 308 mil * .099 = 21.95 million white people .15 * 308 mil * .266 = 12.28 million hispanic people .12 * 308 mil * .274 = 10.97 million black people

Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: poor people get fucked in this country. They really do. When it happens to black people/hispanics, stupid hippies love to claim it's racism. Maybe, maybe it is a bit. But I don't think so. I think that poor people get fucked in this country with no social welfare net, poor infrastructure, and by making it illegal to take your kid to the rich public school.

A lot of black people and hispanics have pretty terrible options in life, but goddamn it, it's not racism. It's not white frat kids saying nigger. It's that they are poor. And there are a lot of white people in the same boat.

Racism is the false flag of socioeconomic problems in society.


That's for below the poverty line. Care to do a similar analysis for the wealthy or upper middle class?

Racism is the false flag of socioeconomic problems in society.

Racism is not just about the dollars in your hip pocket. Read the article - nowhere in it is he complaining about his pay.


I'm saying that racism exists because of how we treat the poor in general.


If Obamacare provides the economic safety net that lifts poor black families into the middle class, and makes healthy (including biological evolutionary indicators like teeth, skin, and hair radiance) and basic-wealthy black people the more common sort of black person someone sees, then yes, it will tend to counteract historical racism.


healthcare and quality of education being tied to your parents employment and property ownership

Unless I misunderstand you, that's part of reality. Healthcare and education don't fall from the sky. Somebody has to produce them. In order for them to be consumed, they have to either be paid for, or stolen.

the most racist things don't target the race of anyone, just their income level

Racism has a specific definition, and "targeting" someone based on income doesn't meet it (though I don't know what "targeting" means here).


This is why I barely go on this forum any more, stupid fucking fellow Americans.

Did you know that in other countries healthcare is free? And top quality education? And college?

We could have it to, if all you shits didn't incorporate in Delaware. Goddamn this country.


Name-calling is definitely the right approach.

Did you know that in other countries healthcare is free? And top quality education? And college?

In no place anywhere on earth are those things free. Someone pays for them, always. Maybe the government should pay for them here (leaving aside the fact that our government already pays an enormous amount for healthcare and education), but it's not an obvious, incontrovertible fact that we should, to the point that justifies name-calling. Many top economists don't think those things should be subsidized by the government, regardless of how good they may sound to the electorate.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that incorporating in Delaware is some kind of tax dodge; it's not. It won't save you a single penny in taxes. You still have to pay taxes on income in the state in which you generate that income, and you still have to pay federal taxes no matter where you are in the world.


"Chavs" and "thugs", are similarly reviled, yet chavs are the same skin tone as the majority. Race and class and style are interconnected.



Also: "Brogrammers Wanted: Kixeye, the gaming startup that proves Silicon Valley’s frat-house culture isn’t going away anytime soon."

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/...



Clicked on the About link, christ they are all dressed up as something out of a Nazi movie!!!

Well maybe I would have looked at it differently if it wasn't for OP's blogpost but still cheesy.


Here is there website http://www.kixeye.com/


> * A black coworker is singled out by another (non-black) coworker with "watch out for that guy, he’s trouble, he talks a lot of shit"

I think you read that wrong. The black coworker (Mike) said that in reference to Steve not the other way around.

Given that, do you think the black coworker should be fired for saying that about Steve? Is it okay for the Mike to say that about Steve but not the other way around, regardless of how true it is?

Also, I am not sure why I have to include this disclaimer but I am not condoning any of the racism observed in the article.


No, because Steve is surely not one of a tiny minority of white people in the office, nor is there a clear cultural connotation/prejudice of white people being thuggish.

For whatever it's worth to you to know this: being considered thuggish, or violent, or hotheaded, or unreasonable is a hot-button issue for working black professionals. I've had neighbors complain to me that they can't disagree or argue with anything at their office, because as soon as they do, their coworkers start shaking their heads and signaling "there goes the black guy again". Knowing this, you start to see that it is also a privilege to be able to argue, even vehemently, without inadvertently confirming a malignant stereotype about your heritage or upbringing.

Either way one reads that particular point though, I agree that it isn't the most compelling in the story.


(This is a comment on the parent comment, not a comment on the original post. Hope that's alright.)

"You start to see that it is also a privilege to be able to argue, even vehemently, without inadvertently confirming a malignant stereotype about your heritage or upbringing."

Very well said. Thanks for articulating this idea. Don't forget that this goes both ways, though.

As a straight white male that grew up in a very progressive college town, with almost all of my friends being progressive socially liberal graduates, I am constantly "educated" on my privilege and dismissed, ala "there goes that (straight) white guy again with his white privilege and lack of understanding", simply for attempting civilized discourse that is anything but blindly supportive of their social and racial views.

I have to question a sociopolitical philosophy that leaves a lot of its followers avoiding dialogue with and dismissing the people who are most likely the closest to sharing their concerns and ideals.

What I'm trying to convey here is that not much attention is paid, particularly by those who otherwise like talking about privilege as a concept, to the privilege of being able to argue. As I believe civilized discourse is a bedrock of our society, this concerns me. "And it should concern you too!"


It's very important to not tarnish the movement with the actions of a few. It's frustrating to be dismissed for your race when trying to help things, but it's only a vocal few that do this. I hung out on an anti-racism board for a little while and learned a few things there about racism and also about activists. There were the horrid vocally abusive ones, who were given free reign on the board, free to spout their abuse of whites (the board moderator was white and allowed this out of a sense of 'recompense for past sins'), but most of those identifying as non-whites were normal humans trying to discuss things rather than spray venom. The thing is, if you let the vocal nasty people taint your opinion of those following the movement, you're falling into a trap again. It's a bit like tarnishing all baptists with the actions of the Westboro church.

The thing to remember is that the author is not promoting a manifesto or calling to action, he's venting. He's frustrated, and he's not creating a culture of oppression with the occasional use of 'dumbwhite' - some commentors in this thread seem to think that this private use of the word in an anonymised article makes it as bad as creating a culture of bigotry in the workplace. Racism isn't a binary on/off.


"There is another co-worker, Mike, who was also hired through the same contractor and is black also. One day this large, lumbering white guy walks by our work station and Mike says “watch out for that guy, he’s trouble, he talks a lot of shit” in a half affectionate half sarcastic tone, like you would about a friend. However, when I see the white guy’s sneering red face looking back at us I knew there was more than ring of truth to that statement…"

It seems "and Mike says" is pretty clear, especially with the followup about it being true, illustrated with incidents involving the guy who "talks a lot of shit".


Thanks for posting this. So much of HN seems blissfully unaware of what privilege is (white privilege in this case), and I hope your explanation will help some people start to understand.


Privilege is very poorly understood.

In part that is an ironic consequence of privlege: understanding it can lead to giving it up.

The word has become a "PC" signifier technical "term of art, and not often patiently and respectfully explained to people who need to understand it.


Your definition of thuggish seems a bit off. Thug = a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly.

It's akin to calling someone 'white trash'.


Is the point I'm making unclear? Would you like me to reword it? Is there a word you'd prefer I had used in that place instead?


Your point is clear: you're dealing with people who are being willfully moronic. In general, it's advisable to attribute stupidity and not malice -- in this case we are being inflicted with malicious stupidity.

I do believe these arguments being forwarded are deliberately obtuse: whenever an argument is proposed without anticipating and responding to the most obvious challenges, and the person appears to be otherwise possessed of significant intellect, I conclude that the banality is intentional.


There's nothing about the phrase 'white trash' which implies someone is a criminal, though.


It's more akin to calling someone a skinhead.


> A black coworker is singled out by another (non-black) coworker with "watch out for that guy, he’s trouble, he talks a lot of shit"

You got this one backwards. It's another black coworker warning the author that "Steve" talks a lot of shit.

Yeah, everything else there is pretty awful, and Steve should have been fired for it.

I kind of wondered why he mentioned that he was going to to talk to HR, but then didn't. It seems like the appropriate response it to talk to Steve's manager, then HR, then take legal action if the first two were not fruitful.


The author had me up till:

> Going back to the matter at hand, Steve then proceeds to do what white men always can’t help but do: “educate.”

Not all white men can't help but educate. There's a line between banter and offense. I would never want anyone in my team to be offended and I tend to try to (mostly) stay on the side of caution on the banter front mainly because my job is to make it as easy as possible for people to do theirs. I did feel from the photos that the author's attire was not appropriate for the offices we work in (but might be fine for his), but find comparisons to Run DMC much more inappropriate. For one, if I was a member of Run DMC I would greatly protest against the style of the author's dress sense, but then again I grew up in the 80s, the decade that fashion forgot.

At the end of the article, it's clear there are no winners, only losers. It's good that the author is no longer there because he doesn't have to deal with idiots like that. Life's too short to have to put up with any form of crap in an environment that doesn't suit you, regardless of the reasons. It's also good for the idiots working there that he's no longer there either because frankly they lack the maturity in their environment (even if they have it individually) to cope with having someone that doesn't fit their world view there. Racism in the workplace is unacceptable but it does happen[1]. The trick is to deal with it sensitively and objectively while making sure that people understand that they're wrong, why they're wrong and what they need to do to be right. If they screw up with it repeatedly, then maybe they need to find a new job.

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM


I don't believe the author is trying to unfairly tarnish the company he worked for. I do, however, believe that he cannot be an objective witness of events, as his recollection is being strongly influenced by his own personal biases.

You make it seem so nice when you say "the author as an advocate for a fairly specific set of political and social beliefs." But let's be honest, the author is a racist. I get his frustration. But his remarks make it clear he dislikes all white people. The entire "dumbwhite*" stuff, the white supremacy comment, the white men feeling they have authority, etc., are all examples of a negative feelings held against white people simply because they are white. This is racism.

It can't be okay for him to be racist in response to the racism he was experiencing. If we're being asked to not accept one form of racism, then we have to not accept any form of racism.


Really? You think he dislikes all white people? Are you sure he doesn't just hate racist white people?

This is another form of white privilege, white people weighing in on what is and isn't racism. White people are the people least qualified to talk about this. Most white people are completely blind to racism except in the most egregious cases. (Spoiler: those are among the least common.)

And let's face it: white people are, by far, the ones who dole it out most often and virulently, the minute they feel threatened by a "thug" (a black man who is either arguing passionately or wearing baggy pants).

All in all, I'm willing to cut this guy more than a little slack! He probably got a more thorough education about the politics and dynamics of race in the first N years of his life as a black male than most white people get in a lifetime.


His common references to ALL white people as acting a certain way and use of terms like "dumbwhite*" make it pretty clear that he dislikes (or is at least prejudice against) all white people. If a white person were to say any of those things about black people, asian people, or any other people, they'd be racist - what's the difference when a black person says it?

It's not white privilege to be able to weigh in on what is and isn't racism. It's the privilege of every person, regardless of race, to have an opinion.

Do you have evidence to support your claim? Are you talking about pure numbers or per capita? Are you limiting your numbers to a specific country? Do not use numbers as an argument unless you have actual numbers to back up your argument.


Also, bonus points for flipping it around suggesting the real racist here is the victim. Now it's rhetorically impossible to point out that white people have a sense of privilege without also being racist oneself! Well played.


You can claim a white person is a racist, and I have no doubt that some of the people he encountered were racists, but he is obviously a racist as well.

Him being a racist doesn't mean the white people he was interacting with weren't racists too. I'm just saying that it becomes a factor in his credibility, because he makes it obvious that he did not remain impartial while working there.


But once black people stop being racist, then we can talk about white people being racist, right?


I'm not saying we can't talk about it - that's fine. I'm just pointing out that it is tough to remain impartial when you have to factor in your own biases.

And, again, if you're going to tell me that racism is bad, you can't do it while being a racist yourself. Well, I suppose you can, anyone has the right to say what they want, but you have to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy.


> his recollection is being strongly influenced by his own personal biases.

He wisely documented all the abusive incidents. He doesn't need to "recall" anything.


I disagree that the incidents were documented. Unless there is audio or video recordings of the incidents, where we can see, through an impartial view, exactly what the people he was interacting were doing and saying, we have to hear about them through his recollection of events. As he writes these events for us to read he's recalling what those people said or did, and his memory of those events is influenced by his own biases.


> Apart from the comment about the pendant, any one of the comments listed above would be a firing offense here.

You know, it occurs to me that it's kinda sad that "firing offense" is the highest degree of punishment we have available to inflict. It's our proxy for social exile, but it's not actually social exile. That doesn't seem enough, but jailing and fining don't seem to fit either.


Apart from the morality of making team members miserable for the sole purpose of extracting some mirth out of their discomfort, the reason these statements tend to be firing offenses is that they have even more serious consequences for the employer.


What would you suggest instead? That an employer can tar and feather workers for violating company policy?


I haven't the faintest idea. I can certainly recognize and accept that we just don't have a better response. But it was a thought and I judged it worth putting out there for other people to consider too.


Shunning of racists?


This is something I find interesting. AFAIK in the US because of free speech nobody can really do anything in law regarding racism. In the UK in the last few years there have been several high profile cases of racial abuse on Twitter and the racists have gotten jail time (one example at the bottom of the article linked below).

Protecting free speech is important. However most people probably agree there should be a line drawn (for example I doubt anyone would object to a group like the KKK being banned). The problem is enforcing that line fairly and not punishing people for speech that should be allowed is too difficult.

It's an interesting and important problem and becoming more so now that everyone has the means of reaching an audience online.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/26/police-alleged-raci...


Well, lines have been drawn. "Fighting words", "obscenity", "clear and present danger", "libel", and so on. There are a lot of checks on speech, some of which people feel go too far. And it's the purpose of the courts to set precedent and handle fuzziness.

Gaiman has talked about this quite well: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-... The quotable is "The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible."


Disturbingly, when dealing with free speech the US courts are actually more likely to defend the indefensible. For instance, the US Supreme Court unamously ruled that anti-draft speech - actual political speech - wasn't protected by the First Amendment in Schenck v. United States, and the same again with groups advocating Communism in Whitney v. California.

This precedent stood until Brandenburg v. Ohio when suddenly the Supreme Court reversed itself in order to stop the KKK from being outlawed, deciding that it was now suddenly really important for violent rhetoric to have full First Amendment protection. The KKK was actually much further over the line than the precedent-setting groups - they backed up their talk with a long and bloody history of actual violence and murder against black people. In fact some of the speech that the Supreme Court ruled was protected, such as cross-burning, was actually created as a warning to any black residents that they'd be next if they didn't leave town. Somehow the justices cared more about protecting this than they did about protecting actual, political statements that challenged the status quo.


I hadn't known that history; fascinating.

The Wikipedia entry for cross burning indicates that it has been handled negatively in the last five years–that is, the act of cross burning was not protected as speech–and makes no mention of Brandenburg v. Ohio. That Wikipedia entry does not indicate that cross burning was a significant question at stake in the case, since the matter being decided was the constitutionality of the Ohio statute.

Admittedly, that's just a reading of Wikipedia and I have no training in law of any kind, but it doesn't seem as provocative as you put it.


Another interesting tidbit is that the US does very poorly when considering 'freedom of speech' with respect to the media. In the Press Freedom Index, the US comes in at #47 of 179, as compared to the UK's #28 (and the raw scores aren't in the same neighbourhood either). It's just a reminder that speech in the US isn't as free as it's said to be.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html


That's completely justified. Although they're obviously both bad, harming the national war effort is far more dangerous than racism against a subgroup of citizens. The number of lynchings of black Americans doesn't even come close to the casualties suffered in WWI.


for example I doubt anyone would object to a group like the KKK being banned

Well, the ACLU would. And has. And for good reason.

There is no right not to have your feelings hurt.

(NB for people hopping here without context: that last sentence is not meant to talk about OP)


> In the UK in the last few years there have been several high profile cases of racial abuse on Twitter and the racists have gotten jail time (one example at the bottom of the article linked below).

This is one of the advantages of having a written constitution. You can't just do things on a whim that violate basic principles of the country, since they're clearly codified in writing.


I had a British lawyer tell me that in no uncertain terms, the UK has a written constitution. It's just not on a single document named "The Constitution", but a collection of documents covering different things.

As for doing things on a whim that violate basic principles of the country, when it comes to constitutionally-mandated protections against unreasonable search and seizure, I'd rather go through UK airport security than US. Then there's oddities like 'free speech zones', where you can say what you like, but only where you're told to. The second amendment is hardly 'clearly codified' - it's highly ambiguous, yet has such significant impact on US society.

The US consitution has some great stuff in it and was a watershed document, but it's not a magical shield simply because it's written down on a document named 'constitution'.


As a resident of the UK, I think that if we did have a written constitution, regrettably free speech wouldn't be on it. As much as I personally believe in free speech, I do get the impression that the general public here don't.


Which is absolutely fine ― at least then those people wouldn't be able to hypocritically claim free speech as one of their country's positive attributes when trying to distinguish themselves from "barbaric" countries like China or those in the Middle East while also suppressing free speech when it fits their "multicultural" agenda.

Moreover, the UK would then get a lot of shit overseas, particularly in America, for being an example of how European-style socialism leads to a lack of civil liberties, and that might put pressure on the British to actually codify that right.


[removed because vacri's comment clearly expresses what I was going for incoherently]


If anything, he was dressed closer to NWA or Public Enemy.

Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with his lyrical abilities.


... wow. Just .... wow.

You may disagree with his fashion sense, but this man is smartly dressed. I don't see any Raiders jackets, or any baggy jeans/tee-shirts. Just because his clothing is not mainstream and he is black DOES NOT make it hip-hop fashion.

While we're on the topic, note the shoes in particular, very nice, especially for a guy struggling to afford a bedroom in Oakland.


[deleted]


None of those people are dressed like they live in W'burg, like the author of this post is. The similarities literally appear to be "hats, denim, black people", and nothing else.


[deleted]


You made a dumb joke. You should consider that that joke is only funny to people who are comfortable in their surroundings and among their peers; to the lone latino or black person in the office, they come across much differently. It is a form of privilege to be able to chuckle as you toss around which rap group someone looks like they belong to; when that privilege is flexed so that it alienates coworkers, it is abusive.


Congrats, you found an early picture of the group before they hit it big and made gangsta rap big.

Hey, I can do that too. Is this the image your memory conjures up when you think of Dre?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QSIi0iTqOZE/Tqz9waZFr_I/AAAAAAAACF...


Suppose, instead of just thinking, "Dumbwhite---," the OP had actually said out loud, "Dumbwhite---."

Would that be a firing offense, too? I'm sure it would be - I'm just asking to make sure.


Well, then props to him for knowing how to keep his private feelings and thoughts out of the workplace.


At least by his own recollection. Anyone who is harboring that kind of hostility, whatever the cause, is going to exude pretty strange vibes in person.

What's disturbing to me is not that an obviously talented young person like the OP has these kinds of issues. He'll almost certainly grow out of them.

It's that so many older, wiser people, who obviously don't have personal problems of their own, seem intent on encouraging this way of thinking. Just because you think you're doing good, doesn't mean you actually are.


> an obviously talented young person like the OP

This is the strangest part of your claims. I don't see anything indicating that he's a remotely competent worker. Admittedly, I haven't researched who he is, but the only credibility he's got is that he can set up a Tumblr and add pictures to his post. I am not impressed at his technical skill–or his grammar, spelling, diction, or eloquence–indeed nothing about him says he's worth my time except that he's human and hurting.

If anything, this offhand remark of yours serves to undermine your credibility to me.


So are you saying that "strange vibes" should be a firing offense in an office run like the one the author describes? If not, what are you getting at? To me, it sounds like the author regularly has to deal with discrimination being both black and gay. Some will respond to this with indifference, others bravado. There is nothing immature, as you imply, about a bitter and withdrawn response to this. To claim that he is some innately hostile person ("harboring that kind of hostility") says an awful lot about how you reason about power dynamics.


Is your motivation to discredit him? If so, why? If not, why is your criticism relevant?


If this guy was white and calling everyone "dumbblack------" no one would be upvoting this.


Huh, it's as if white people come from a position of privilege, generations of near-total freedom from racial oppression, if you will, thus making similar-seeming actions have very different contexts!


In the office, probably. On a pseudonymous personal blog for somebody without any management duties, probably not.


"Dumbblack"

"then proceeds to do what black men always can’t help but do"

"black men always telling which way is up because they feel they are the “authority” when it comes to any and everything, most often when they don’t know shit about shit"

" I know when black people start to speak down to me from their pedatsol which is white privilege, they aren’t listening, nor will they"

"I cannot afford to take black people’s shit anymore."

Those are all quotes from the article, except I put 'black' where the author put 'white', both sets are clearly an unacceptable way to speak. While I am sure this guy has faced real disadvantage from some bigoted people, this post is laced with racism against white people and ridiculously over-the-top statements about colonialism and "neoliberal white supremacy".


Let's pretend for a minute that I think it's reasonable to swap black & white in these sentences and call them equivalent (I don't)... There's still a mammoth difference between opinions someone writes on a blog and things people say to their employees or coworkers at work.

I can't think of a time that I faced the level of ugliness laid out in this story even once in my 32 years, so the last thing that occurs to me when I read something like this is "Wow, the author is saying some completely unacceptably racist things"

[EDIT: Shit. I'm 34, not 32 or even 33. I have no idea why I can't keep that straight.]


The tone isn't helping his case.

I've been around these kind of complaints in person, and while I know that the injustices taking place are horrible and uncalled for, I also know that the complainer is also (not-so-subtly any more) racist as well. Perhaps he wasn't before he entered the school system or the workforce (not necessarily this job), but saying things like dumbwhite*, bringing up colonization like slavery as property is taking place in his neighbourhood (he's going through legal to get this solved, something slaves could never do), and repeatedly bringing up that his tormentors are white, male, rich, etc. just shows that he's brought his own racist viewpoints to the table.

This reminds me of the atmosphere in South Africa years after apartheid was rescinded. The atmosphere, not the gruesome crimes. Perhaps it can be justified, but it sure wasn't how MLK Jr. or Mandela (at least after he became president) attacked the problem and it's only good for outrage, not getting anything done.

White guilt isn't going to help solve racism, but I agree that the author deserves some justice.


I don't think my reaction has anything to with "white guilt". I'm only convinced that I would have an incredibly hard time dealing with the situation the author presented gracefully, and as such I'm not that interested in debating whether this is an completely appropriate or graceful reaction to something really horrible.

It's the really horrible bit that deserves focus.


There's a huge difference between stuff that those in power (the hegemony) say and do to minorities or others who are less powerful and what flows in the other direction.


Ah, the tone argument.

Are you looking to round out the racism discussion derail bingo card, or just completely clueless?


On HN, you can usually be sure it's cluelessness. On the other hand, it's not really a cluelessness that can be addressed by lecturing about it: there are fundamentals that I've noticed are missing in a lot of people.

It doesn't help that a lot of the language of power dynamics was co-opted by the self-help community, which can often be legitimately criticized in these ways.


I am not sure he is using the tone argument, since he concludes with "but I agree that the author deserves some justice.". He may just be suggesting that many here at HN attack the author due to the racist tone of the post.

Pointing out an ugly tone does not mean you think it invalidates the argument.


The "tone argument" isnt necessarily an attempt to counter the opposing viewpoint. It's a derailment.

"Yes, you're angry but instead of talking about why you're angry let's talk about how the way you expressed your anger is inappropriate".

Its an inappropriate topic change, directing blame at the author when it's really not warranted.


I'm just saying as far as history has dictated, guys like MLK Jr. and Gandhi got a lot more support than those who tries to cut completely against the grain like Malcolm X in his earlier days.

As a minority, it is really, really hard to change or rectify the corruption of the majority by trying to fight them head-on. These sort of revolutions worked when the majority of the people overthrew a corrupt minority that had excessive power. However, thinking things over, I'm not sure if the author is even really out to solve the large racial issue in general with this post. I don't think that was his point, so maybe I'm offering suggestions to a goal that he never had in the first place. If this, like most tumblr posts, is just to get it out in writing so he can think clearly and draw attention by the public to the situation, then yes, it works.


Yeah, this pretty much nails it.


Maybe you had a job or something that required you to write your name a lot when you were 32? I keep getting my address mixed up because it's almost, but not quite, identical to my old one. It can be pretty embarrassing.


Actually I suspect it's not a coincidence that two years ago I joined a startup with a pretty hectic pace :) Time flies!


You're leaving out a pretty important bit of context. He isn't talking about white people in general, here. He is talking about a very specific subset of people who have had power over him, and said pretty racist things to him. I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to my white mother when he said dumbwhite.

While I agree that the saintly thing to is respond without bringing up your persecutors' race, I am pretty sympathetic to people who have been the victims of overt racism seeing some things in terms of race. They've had their faces rubbed in it.

And I'm sorry to come down hard on you, but it's pretty arrogant to tell someone who is still suffering the consequences of being harassed because of his race not to take notice of the race of the people harassing him.


That bit of context is irrelevant. He frequently used the extremely general term, "Dumbwhite motherfucker.", which is blatantly racist and makes his complete argument null and void, because the comments he makes in this post are no better than the crap he heard at his job.

Sincerity and respect for a person's race does not take a backseat just because someone made racist remarks to someone else. I've been the victim of racist remarks and I'm white, that doesn't make it okay for me to refer to the other person by their race. In fact, it makes it WORSE.

Being tolerant of ANYONE using racism for ANY reason is not okay.

EDIT: The more I read your comment, the more it looks like you support racism as a means of retaliation to racism. This is why racism still (and always) exists.


> He frequently used the extremely general term, "Dumbwhite motherfucker.", which is blatantly racist

Agreed.

> makes his complete argument null and void

No, actually it doesn't. That's really not how logic works.

This is an audience problem. This post was pretty clearly not meant to be an intellectual tour de force; it was a rant, and a step away from frothing at the mouth. The author doesn't claim to be perfect, nor is he. For an audience like HN, it's completely inappropriate, because it doesn't take into account our biases and worldviews; but I seriously doubt he expected to be on the HN front page.


Except it really does. I fully support a good rant to get something off the chest. The OP is so intensely focused on the race of his attackers, that it is debilitating to the rest of his problem. It makes him look just as bad as his attackers for stooping to the race level.


'Oh yes it does' is a powerful assertion, but doesn't really constitute an argument.


Except he never used that sort of language towards his coworkers at a professional setting.


So racism is okay as long as it's not in a professional setting?


His racism is not the subject of dispute here. The racism that the story focuses on is the one that created a hostile workplace and is the subject of legal action.


Why isn't it? The use of racism regardless of any factor is wrong. You are still condoning one person's use of racism over another. Setting does not dictate when racism is okay.

Edit: Also legal action? Im sure his use of "dumbwhite motherfucker" in court will go over very well. Come on...


>which is blatantly racist and makes his complete argument null and void, because the comments he makes in this post are no better than the crap he heard at his job.

Oh hey, it's the rare explicitly stated ad hominem attack.


I don't think this is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. Rather it seem to be tu quoue fallacy (attempting to discredit by asserting hypocrisy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) Technically I suppose that is a form of an ad hominem fallacy, but describing it as that seems off to me.

(Not that that's any better.)


Even the wikipedia article mentions that this is a type of ad hominem. But thanks for teaching me an even more specific term! :)


> You're leaving out a pretty important bit of context. He isn't talking about white people in general, here. He is talking about a very specific subset of people who have had power over him, and said pretty racist things to him. I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to my white mother when he said dumbwhite.

So racial epithets are OK as long as you're targeting a group of people who have wronged you? Got it.

Not that it in any way legitimizes the vile things that were said to the man.


> So racial epithets are OK as long as you're targeting a group of people who have wronged you? Got it.

So long as you're talking about a group of people who have systemic, institutionalized power over you based on the colour of their own skin? Damn right they're OK. I hate to break it to you, but it's pretty much only white people that think race is no big deal. People of colour tend to get disabused of that foolish idea pretty damn quickly by reality. See for instance http://www.womanist-musings.com/2012/02/anti-racist-billboar...


If I said "dumbblack motherfucker", I'd be called racist. The OP is being racist, regardless of what has or has not happened to him.


WHO CARES? Yes, let's suspend his Guardian Of Society Medal Of Honor until we sort his personal politics out. Meanwhile, this guy says that management at a large SF gaming company is routinely harassing black and latino staff members. The story here isn't about him.


> WHO CARES?

It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.


And right there is the classic holding pattern. 40 minutes into posting too, not bad.

The pattern is:

Apply standard of neutrality to poster, and find poster wanting - hence remain skeptical to keep an open mind.

"there could be a misunderstanding."

The promulgator and supporters are always people who are at best well meaning, but generally oblivious to privilege or its manifestations.

This will be pointed out, and the promulgator will point out how they have done X or are friends with Y in defence.

So first off - you aren't being targeted. The promulgator is acting rationally based on his experiences.

The best examples to counter this were an AMA from a guy who had a sex change operation. He then could clarify what Male privilege is, and how you would be completely oblivious to it until its gone.

It turns down as a woman a simple thing like walking down a road changes in a manner drastically different from what men are used to.

Similarly there was an AMA from a girl who used to look good, and then lost that advantage. All of a sudden she saw privileges she assumed were just normal things - disappear.

It turns out that men don't normally open doors for you, or are helpful.

Unfortunately when you react with outrage, most people have no idea what you are talking about and respond with:

"It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made"


My personal theory on why this particular POV always attracts folk is as follows:

• We see a stranger (call them the victim) on the internet making strong, negative claims against a set of people who are also strangers.

• We often only have the victim's word to judge these claims by.

• Therefore, there will often be debate about these words (which we can talk about with certainty) instead of the claims made (which we only know about second-hand.)

Starting from this perspective seems to lead to really, really degenerate conversation. It tends to be worst when talking about rape or sexual harassment charges.

(There's sometimes an additional weird layer where commenters think the original victim shouldn't make claims they can't prove to third parties, regardless of the truth of those claims.)


I see the same - its a terrible pattern and the only time it gets broken is on the extremely rare occasions when someone with experience AND ability to express the issue precisely shows up.

Other wise its always a death spiral at worst or a holding pattern on average.

I think yours is a larger general case - and I am trying to invoke perhaps a child case with the addition of privilege blindness.

What is tragic that this is a perfect example of good intentions that lead to terrible results.


Of course he has an agenda! How could he NOT have an agenda if even HALF of the things in this post actually happened to him?


> It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

In brief, saying "X is wrong, because X subscribes to ideology I" is not a logically valid argument. Willing to hear X's argument and consider it on its own merits does not grant legitimacy to I.

The narrator's argument isn't "white people are colonizers, so...", he merely enumerates what he has experienced. That phrasing is unfortunate (but pales in comparison to being told far more offensive things _at work_) it doesn't detract from (or add to) his argument, i.e., it's an irrelevant detail.


To be clear, I'm not dismissing his argument, I was simply answering the question "WHO CARES".

There's a time to vent and a time to make a case. I personally feel that the author would have been better served making a case (EEOC) instead of venting in a public method. Especially since the identities of the author and the company in question are very easy to track down. This could have long term negative consequences for the author, and may make his claim harder if he does decided to take his former employer to court.

YMMV.


You're saying you doubt this happened?


At the very least, the magnitude and gravity claimed become suspect.


Watch this video and tell me if you think that they're comfortable portraying themselves this way and wouldn't act the way discussed in this post?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/...


And here I was thinking brogramming was just a total self-aware meme that went from pun to Twilio's joke presentation to media hysteria. Are you telling me this is a real subculture which exists in Silicon Valley now?


Not at all. I hope he kicks their ass in court.

However, it detracts from the story compared to a straight telling, which would have focused 100% on the racist jerk.

IMO.


Because I didn't see a better place to comment and I value your response:

When should it be considered acceptable for a victim to mimic their aggressor's behavior (especially when it is similar behavior that caused the victimization to begin with)?

Disclaimer: I'm trying to understand and not support to any of the GP comments.


EVERY narrator has an agenda. Personally I appreciate it when an author doesn't pretend to objectivity.


If somebody is prone to see the world in a black and white us v. them way, they might have a different perception of what is really happening, leading them to conclude that everybody is discriminating against them.

I'm not saying that this is what happened. You asked why it might be relevant and I just wanted to point this out.


I agree, but some of his content will be a barrier for some people. I'm sure if the tone of the post was milder, most of the comments here would be supportive.

IANAL, but I wonder if this post will hurt his chances of successfully pursuing his employers?


I'm sure if the tone of the post was milder, most of the comments here would be supportive.

Why do you believe that? Have you been in a bunch of pitch perfect productive conversations about racism? In my experience, when one tactic for derailing conversations about racism fails people just pick up another one. In this conversation you see many such strategies at play:

I see all of these as efforts to not talk about the actual structures being criticized in the post:

* Saying the tone makes the message unlistenable * Talking about the extent to which the post is effective activism ("he would be more effective if...") * Stopping conversation do to perceived insurmountable "bias" * Refocusing on other forms of racism (like the dumbwhite* comments) * Talking about whether people are "racists" and refocusing on their overall character.

It goes on and on. Pitch perfect tone doesn't get you through that wilderness.

And honestly, when someone has been through something so traumatic, demanding perfect pitch is heartless.


I'm not suggesting that the tone of the post determines its veracity. I am suggesting that the reaction the post has received here is due to its tone, not to its content. I'm fairly sure most commenters would agree that his ex-co-workers were racists (or, at the very least, extremely thoughtless). I'm not demanding a pitch perfect post on Tumblr at all, merely making an observation about the reactions.


IANAL, but unless he said that stuff to them at work and they documented it, it would be completely immaterial.


I find it curious that the biggest arguments against his story are not addressing the author's central point.


This is one of those things where you are both correct but miss the point. Yes, this sort of language is not tolerable. Yes, it's also the sort of generalizations the author is railing about. Absolutely.

However, let's take the story at face value for a second. What occured between this person and the people around him wasn't just inappropriate workplace conduct, it was systemic and demeaning in a way that is hard for someone to get if they're not the subject of it. Most people are not wired to take this kind of abuse in a sustained way. This person is hurt, they're confused, they feel powerless, and they're lashing out.

So I think we can probably get to the victim's fucked up statements after we let the outrage over the institutionalized racism that the story consists of simmer down, don't you think? I've said some pretty dumb, mean things when I'm suffering from emotional trauma, haven't you? At least we have an excuse and we can apologize and say, "That was my anger and frustration, I know it's wrong."

But perhaps what makes me most angry is that other members of this team were complicit in this treatment. They're not stopping it, they're not complaining, they're not resigning, they're not objecting. It's terrifying.


This is the equivalent of saying the author of this post is a reverse racist. When was the last time a white person was killed for being white? When was the last time someone came up to a white person and said they should be grateful that their ancestors were slaves? When was the last time the government systematically dismantled the white community in order to enforce racist class oppression?

Repeat after me: WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER FROM RACISM. Even if an individual was prejudiced against someone because they are white, they would not be affected outside of that one interaction. White folks' social standing and ability to survive are not attacked daily on the basis of their skin.

EDIT: This is in context for the United States based on the blog author being in SF.


Take a walk through half of Baltimore, friend, and you will discover that you will get the shit kicked out of you for being white. Murdered? Hopefully not, but I can assure you that, while the old, racist, static power structures of the USA are oppressive towards non-whites, power is not a static thing. It shifts depending on where you are. When you are taking said walk in Baltimore, and become surrounded by people who don't like you because of your skin color, you don't have power anymore. They do. I know this first hand. When I was 16, I took a short cut through a neighborhood that I shouldn't have. I was chased, cornered, and beaten by 5 young men. They were black, and they were yelling white slurs as they beat me and then branded the back of my neck with a lighter. I still have that little smiley on the back of my neck to this day. They didn't rob me by the way. NONE of my money was taken. They didn't even touch my wallet. They didn't want a white person in their neighborhood. Your theory holds up because you, clearly, have never lived in a majority black neighborhood in your entire life. It's obvious by your stupid statement. And no, I'm not a racist. Most of the black folks I grew up with would never have tolerated such a thing. They would have stopped it if they had seen it, but they weren't there.


And now imagine the entire country was like that half of Baltimore? How would you feel then? You can at least avoid that area - they can't.


The entire country ISN'T like that half of Baltimore.

Most of the country doesn't give a shit what color you are so long as you don't start with a presumptive "you're a fucking racist!" attitude.


He was wrong a couple of sentences but I think what OP is getting at is that the government has not and will not engage in a systematic apparatus of prejudice like Jim Crow laws, the radio-active half life of which stay with us for a long time.

So what about the rest of what he said?

> It's obvious by your stupid statement

There's no need for name calling. It's the lowest form of debate.


>Take a walk through half of Baltimore, friend, and you will discover that you will get the shit kicked out of you for being white.

Hey there! I'm a white guy who has taken walks through Baltimore before— in fact, all of Baltimore. What you're talking about isn't at all systemic like the shit the OP has to deal with. Yes, white people are victims of racially-motivated crimes. In fact, some of them are event prosecuted as hate crimes! But it's not systemic, so comparing it to white-on-black racism isn't fair.


I've taken walks through Baltimore. Unfortunately an oppressed people will lash out at those who they think are oppressing them. You could have never performed any ill acts to those black men who beat you, but to them, you represent the reason why they think they can't get ahead. It's not right, but it is a reality.

Also, please don't support your views with the, "I have black friends" excuse. It doesn't help your cause.


This attitude, and the casual "reverse" racism of this author, sets back social progress against institutional racism against blacks/hispanics so much.

I totally accept that blacks face more racism in many aspects of society today, especially professionally. But in Baltimore a bunch of black kids jumped me, and they told me it was because I was white and I "thought I could walk around their neighborhood" (a block from Penn Station which is actually pretty gentrified). It wasn't even a robbery, although they did rob me, but if that was their only goal they wouldn't have continued to beat me for the ten minutes after I had given up. Oh, and of course that's not considered a hate crime.

So when that happens, and then you tell me, in all caps, that white people are never the victims of racism, do you think I'm more or less inclined to agree with your other points?


Welcome to my world buddy. Any white (or middle eastern, as my good friend from Detroit can attest) person who has lived in a poor, mostly black neighborhood has had to deal with this shit. The fact that it is actively ignored by the media and government and dismissed as being criminally, rather than racially motivated is terrible. But having to listen to whites who have no idea it even exists proclaim that racism, a condition that all humans are prone to, can only infect whites is simply insulting.


Aren't all racial attacks criminally motivated?


"When was the last time a white person was killed for being white?"

I wasn't killed but I was beat to a pulp one day for being white by a group of people. My crime? Trying to shake a guy's hand that walked up to me. Apparently that was some sort of insult. Not institutional enough for you? A non-white police officer was literally 20 feet away from me and did absolutely nothing. Probably because he was scared.

I've never had it happen to me before or since but to say someone cannot be violently targeted for being white is absurd. Was it racism? Well, that depends on your definition of racism. Some only consider it racism when perpetrated by someone who belongs to a group that traditionally has less power. But, I'll tell you, I felt pretty powerless that day in the face of a group with more power than I possessed at that moment.


White people might not suffer from racism where you are but thats not to say they never suffer from racism. Racism exists against all races and all over the world. We shouldn't be focusing on the race of the victims or even the perpetrators we should be focusing on stopping it period.


Good point, I've added a note to point out the context as referring to the United States.

EDIT: I would point out that some groups suffer much more from racism than others, so we should be aware of that reality in dealing with racism. To that end, whites in the United States are largely unaffected by racist attitudes.


> Repeat after me: WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER FROM RACISM

That's a load of crap. I am considered "white" (you need papers and blood quote to prove you're Native American despite what some senatorial candidate thinks), and I have gotten a ton of crap because I grew up on a reservation not of my father's tribe. And no, I did not get to flee to the mystically accepting fellow white folk in the the town next door (I lived on the rez after all and am related).

The brain is an amazing pattern matching machine. You missed matching the whole pattern.


> When was the last time a white person was killed for being white

You're not helping your cause by making ridiculous statements. The most recent one I could find was 2 weeks ago. http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2778011.shtml

You have to go here to see the police report: http://lakeminnetonka.patch.com/articles/arrest-made-in-conn...

But you have to understand the rules of the game. Unless a black person is literally shouting "die whitey" while stomping someone to death, then it's not a hate crime when a black person attacks a white person, regardless of actual motivation or lack thereof. It's just another random senseless crime and not part of a pattern. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_an...


Oh, yes we do and are.


The concept that "Only white people can be racist" is widespread, similar to "Only women can be raped" - implying that it's impossible for white people to be discriminated against, or for males to feel sexually threatened. These lies are part of the problem.


Just look at the interracial rape and murder statistics. Blacks target whites for rape and murder in great quantities. During the Trayvon Martin debacle, a white kid in Kansas city was DOUSED IN GASOLINE and SET ON FIRE while two black kids say "you get what you deserve, white boy." Of course, you don't hear this in the media because the media wants to perpetuate a myth that whites aren't victims of racist violence. In reality, they are the primary ones.

I am slavic. Wendish, specifically, if you are familiar. I am glad that my ancestors were enslaved for a while. It brought my culture out of petty infighting and settled us in Northern Europe. My life is better today because my ancestors were enslaved. For me to run around with a chip on my shoulder demanding reparations would be ridiculous.

The government does systematically dismantle white communities. Try running around saying you're proud of being white. You're instantly labeled a bigot. A man recently tried trademarking the phrase "white pride, country wide". Despite trademarks for everything from "jewish pride" to "latino pride", he was denied. The FBI specifically targets white nationalist organizations-- Randy Weaver had his wife and son murdered at Ruby Ridge because he refused to falsely testify against his Aryan Nations associates.

Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Whites are the people that built this country, and we are under attack for the same reason that Marathis are under attack in India, and Gazprom is stealing land from Nigerians. Bankers and commodity magnates would separate those attached to the soil from the lands which rightfully belong to them, so they can endlessly charge them for being there, as well as steal all the resources.


Statistically, you would expect more crime against white people since there are so many more of them. What matters is the probability that a person of a given ethnicity is likely to be a victim of8 violence at the hands of someone else, not the absolute number of such instances.

Suppose in a population of 100, there are 20 blue and 80 green people. Suppose that 10 blue people are the victim of green crime in a given year, while blue people commit 20 crimes against green people in the same period. So you could say that blue people commit twice as much crime as green people, which is true, but that leaves out the fact of the population disparity. If a blue person has a 50% chance of criminal insult from a green person, while a green person only has a 25% chance of experiencing that, then it's obviously better to be green than it is to be blue because you are only half as likely to become a victim of crime.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself often look at the absolute numbers, compare the 20 blue-on-green crimes with the blue population size of 20, and leap to the conclusion that all blue people are criminals. While the percentage of criminals in the blue population is almost certainly higher on the basis of simple probability (as blue criminals would otherwise need to be >8 more active than green ones), what you have there is a correlative rather than a causal relationship : we don't know to what extent the incidence of criminality in a population causes crime against that population, a classic chicken-and-egg problem that most likely does not have a simple binary solution.


> Statistically, you would expect more crime against white people since there are so many more of them.

Actually, the crime rate among blacks is much higher even after normalizing for population.


Maybe you should read the rest of my comment, which addressed exactly that issue.


"Whites are the people that built this country." You are surely very wrong. This country was very literally built on the backs of minorities and slaves. You really think America would have near the economic power today without those years of free labor to farm their free (stolen) farm land?


Case in point, one of the strongest arguments against emancipation was that it would actually cripple the national economy. I expect that's not only in America either.


The vast majority of slaves that we got of African origin were traded to us by other Africans. I'd say of the two possibilities of enslavement in Africa, being to a ship bound for the new world held the most promise. If you disagree, I will buy you a one way ticket to Liberia on the condition that you renounce your citizenship.

As a Slav, my people were in bondage much longer than blacks in the United States. Try an order of a millenia or two. I do not care. It is far more advantageous for me to be industrious and build personal wealth than blame distant oppressors for a few centuries of enslavement. I benefitted from the bad conditions of my ancestors, and guess what? So did blacks in the United States. They should stop being professional victims and make things if they want to have equal cultural influence.

Beyond that, this whole discussion is a distraction from the people that have real undue power, those in control of the banks and the media.... If we fight amongst ourselves about race we miss the man behind the Zion curtain.


If we fight amongst ourselves about race we miss the man behind the Zion curtain.

Go troll somewhere else, weev.


Out of curiosity, which country's government are you talking about? I looked up "Wendish" but can't tell which country you grew up in from that, and it sounds like you're talking about the USA otherwise.


> Just look at the interracial rape and murder statistics. Blacks target whites for rape and murder in great quantities. During the Trayvon Martin debacle, a white kid in Kansas city was DOUSED IN GASOLINE and SET ON FIRE while two black kids say "you get what you deserve, white boy." Of course, you don't hear this in the media because the media wants to perpetuate a myth that whites aren't victims of racist violence. In reality, they are the primary ones.

Incidents of violence crime based on race occur, there is no disputing that. What we are talking about primarily is racism as it affects whites, both on a micro- and macro-level (which is annoying that you taking a derailment in this direction since the original story is a black man talking about individual racist experiences working in the valley, notice how you and others have made this about whites rather than racist treatment of people of color).

> I am slavic. Wendish, specifically, if you are familiar. I am glad that my ancestors were enslaved for a while. It brought my culture out of petty infighting and settled us in Northern Europe. My life is better today because my ancestors were enslaved. For me to run around with a chip on my shoulder demanding reparations would be ridiculous.

This is post hoc reasoning. You have no idea how the Wends would be as a culture today in the absence of enslavement. Also, your current standing today in no way makes amends for the rape and murder of a people in the past. It should be noted that the history of the Wends is much further removed than the history of blacks in the United States, and that white-ness has become the social norm in the western world, so you benefit from a social condition that directly depends on the exploitation of people of color if you live in one of those western countries. Also, the experience of you as Wendish is extremely different some a black person living in the United States, so I don't believe there is even a comparison to make here.

> The government does systematically dismantle white communities.

Show me where the United States is actively dismantling or has actively dismantled white community based on race in modern history, because AFAIK there is no such scenario.

> Try running around saying you're proud of being white. You're instantly labeled a bigot. A man recently tried trademarking the phrase "white pride, country wide". Despite trademarks for everything from "jewish pride" to "latino pride", he was denied.

In the United States, white-ness is considered the cultural default. Most of society in the United States already promotes white-ness above the cultures of people of color. Also, white supremacy groups continue to operate and hate speech is not a crime in the US, so these groups may continue to operate if they so choose to. Note that if you are trying to promote white superiority, then yes you are a bigot.

> The FBI specifically targets white nationalist organizations-- Randy Weaver had his wife and son murdered at Ruby Ridge because he refused to falsely testify against his Aryan Nations associates.

The Aryan Nations are not just an advocacy group, they are a separatist group that advocates and performs acts of violence. These groups are investigated by the FBI for operating in that way.

> Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Whites are the people that built this country

This is grossly mistaken. While whites have contributed to what this country is today, so have non-white immigrants and slaves and their descendants. If you truly believe that white people made the US, you need to crack open a history book.

> we are under attack for the same reason that Marathis are under attack in India, and Gazprom is stealing land from Nigerians.

I won't be making comments about society and cultures that are not western, as rarely do such comparisons actually contain truth, and I do not have enough knowledge of those situations to accurately describe them.


Whites are the people that built this country

If "built" == "shot the Native Americans who settled"


There are several definitions of racist talk, one is essentially "making references to someone's race and implying everyone in that group is the same (in some attribute)". Lots of people like this definition because it's nice and simple and it means black people in the USA can be racist to white people if they say things like "Dumbwhite".

There's another definition, which is talk that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races. Right now, if modern USA life was a video game, "white male" would be an easier difficulty level than "black male". There are statistically less problems for the "white male" group. Racist talk is talk that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/white/black/g and make it just as racist.

So no, it's more racist to say "dumbblack" than "dumbwhite"


>There's another definition, which is talk that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races.

I generally think it's safer to frame in terms of the effect (which you mostly do) than motivation. Even if someone has no ill intent, and simply talks a certain way because they haven't really thought about the issues, their speech still does harm.


Agreed. Some things can be a joke (ie they are funny, they make people laugh, they are told with intent to entertain, not hurt) and can be racist. This is why "but it's just a joke" does not mean the thing isn't racist. Sometimes when someone says a racist joke, the discussion then turns into whether it's funny or not, and if it passes the funny test, it's not racist.

But it doesnt matter if its funny! It matters if its racist!


> it's more racist to say "dumbblack" than "dumbwhite"

There are degrees of racism? Wasn't that a binary thing? I understand that racists aren't created equal since some are filled with more prejudices than others but I think the same doesn't apply to racism itself. I'm not arguing that life is harder for people who are (or so we are told, I've got no data) the majority of victims but a victim being racist isn't being "less racist" after all. He's contributing to a vicious circle. Whilst I understand such behaviour from an emotional point of view, it's definitely not wise.


"Racism" does not have exact definition. It's just a label that means slightly different things in different contexts. It's an abstraction over a specific type of offensive / hateful behavior. In more in-depth discussions, I think it's better to operate beneath this abstraction, on a lower level: i.e. how much harm saying or doing something does.

In most situations, saying "dumbblack" would be more offensive for black person than "dumbwhite" for white person. Especially in this case. It's like if you had a couple of bad experiences with the police, you could start saying offensive things about police officers in general. You could be accused of "policism" but in fact, it would be quite understandable reaction. When he said "dumbwhite", he was kind of "revenging" their racism, which is very different from saying "dumbwhite" just because he disrespects white people.


> So no, it's more racist to say "dumbblack" than "dumbwhite"

That's like saying that steak is food, but ramen isn't. Clearly, steak is considered a higher-quality food, but that doesn't negate the fact that ramen is food as well.

Due to the historical mistreatment of black people in America, it is more socially unacceptable to say something like "dumbblack"; however, "dumbwhite" is no less accurately described by 'a hatred or intolerance of another race'.


It's not clear that it is more socially unacceptable to say something like "dumbblack"... the workplace he was at essentially said that to him repeatedly for months, while he had a single rant on a webpage. But if you look at the breakdown of Hacker News comments, it's pretty clear where most people's sympathies lie.


That's true, but - and it's a big, big but - he doesn't have any power over you. He's venting his feelings about his experience, but the people he's talking about are his employers and that puts him in the position of having to accept their mockery and control over his wardrobe in order to keep receiving a paycheck.

See, while I think the author has something of a chip on his shoulder, he's got some historical and demographic basis for it, and chips weigh more heavily on younger shoulders; it's easier for me to be philosophical about life's obstacles insofar as I've survived to middle age in reasonable comfort and so on. And no, I don't think this is an unacceptable way to speak. It's unacceptable in the workplace, and I'd be lukewarm towards it in a social context, but people have to the freedom to think and express things that I find odious to the extent that I have the freedom to disagree or walk away without any negative consequences. That's not the case in an employment situation, because while you can walk away there's a measurable economic cost to doing so.


It's possible this guy is a jerk and that this company is a bunch of assholes. You don't minimize one party's guilt by pointing out the other party's guilt.

EDIT: plus, it's easy for me to avoid dealing with this guy. I won't be his friend. But I really worry about the culture of the software industry, and if Kixeye spreads to mean more asshole workplaces, that's something that's a lot harder to avoid.


If there were a prize for totally missing the point by being pedantic and insensitive, you would win. Congrats!



Hacker News has taken another step towards Gawker. If this kind of garbage was modded up here every day, I would find somewhere else to find real news.


Calm down pal. Nowhere does the author imply he thinks using white in those circumstances would be any less racist... No one's out to get you.


No, he doesn't. He just tells you how horrific it is that they are being racist, whilst ignoring the fact that he's letting off racist jibes any time someone says something ignorant (and in at least one of the occasions, honestly, not wilfully so).


I'm sorry, but this kind of whining is what I've heard from professional victims my entire life. Talking about gentrifiers as invaders discredits the rest of the story in my eyes. As a former trailer park country boy who grew up in a mostly black county, I can attest to how blatantly (and without even realizing it) racist and insensitive whites who grew up in affluent suburbs can be. My best friend (since age 11) is a black male who dominates at his company. He has told me dozens of stories of dealing with these kinds of white boys. All the stories end the same way: He tells them, directly, in the same manner as if he were talking to a drunken buddy making an ass of himself at a bar, "what you just said was offensive/racist/etc. I'm gonna assume that you didn't realize it, but now you do. Cool?" He told me this has resulted in all of them apologizing with minimal awkwardness afterwards. Racism/racial insensitivity isn't an incurable disease. It's the result of attitudes and ignorance. If people would, instead of isolating people displaying these behaviors, instead approach them and talk to them and continue to treat them as friends, it would go a long way towards fixing things.


Don't fault people who have to put up with this shit, day in and day out, for not having limitless reserves of patience. His job isn't Racism Educator, so why should he have to act like it?

I mean, yeah, ideally everyone is infinitely calm and can call these things out in a measured way every time they happen. But you're asking a lot from the victims here in order to spare the feelings of the aggressors. (Perhaps unintentional aggressors, but aggressors just the same.) What you're suggesting isn't easy.

And what's to say that the person he calls out will take it well? Look at what happened at his workplace: they told him that the things he was complaining about were only jokes and that he was too sensitive. Look at what is happening in this thread: people are complaining about his tone, complaining about his word choice, and insinuating that he's making things up. That's not even going into the people who start out ostensibly agreeing before segueing into what sounds like their main point: how racist they think the author was being.

So give the tone argument a rest. It's one of the most reliable distractions that people fall back on to avoid discussing racism, sexism, and all other kinds of oppression, and it's already taken over way too much of this thread.


> "He tells them, directly, in the same manner as if he were talking to a drunken buddy making an ass of himself at a bar, "what you just said was offensive/racist/etc. I'm gonna assume that you didn't realize it, but now you do. Cool?" He told me this has resulted in all of them apologizing with minimal awkwardness afterwards."

Your world of rainbows and unicorns sounds amazing, where all racism comes from under-informed people who can then be rightly fixed by prompt education!

Clearly, oppressively racist institutions where people are powerless to correct the situation don't exist. Where they appear to exist, the victims just didn't assert themselves strongly enough. If they just calmly told their oppressors that they were being racist and offensive, they would stop!

This totally explains away the entirety of slavery and apartheid. I'm just shocked that no one over hundreds of years just nicely stopped someone, explained how what they were doing is wrong, and had them stop!

</snark>

Seriously though, I'm glad that your experiences have been exclusively in places where people actually respond to criticism and education. And I mean that - facing the sort of horrific, powerless racism that many people do every day is terrible, and no one deserves to experience it from either end of the stick. Your experience is not generalizable to all instances of racism - it's not even generalizable to a minority of it.


And really, the only reason you aren't a Baptist is because you haven't given the Bible a real chance! All you have to do is read God's Word and let him into your heart and of course you'll believe exactly the same things I do to the letter even if they aren't actually found literally stated anywhere in the Bible.


> Talking about gentrifiers as invaders discredits the rest of the story in my eyes.

Gentrifiers are economic invaders that dismantle the ability of the poor (particularly people of color) to live in their established communities. This is a known form of systemic oppression that disproportionately effects people of color, esp. black folk.

> If people would, instead of isolating people displaying these behaviors, instead approach them and talk to them and continue to treat them as friends, it would go a long way towards fixing things.

This whole blog post is about someone who ultimately does point this kind of behavior out to a manager only to have that manager totally ignore them. In non-professional contexts, calling people out has gotten folks attacked, beaten, harassed, maimed, and killed. The solution to ending this kind of oppression is not niceness and having those being fucked over bend over backwards.

It should be noted that your friend as a higher up at a company is an exception to the rule, as black people are not well represented in management in the business world and often do not have the luxury of using authority to back up their call out.


Get past his politics and read the direct factual assertions he is making about things that happened at that company. They're spectacularly bad.


Also, read more about the company: Kixeye.

Not only is this terribly racist and sexist culture not just a figment of the author's politics - it's something the company is proud of: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/...

I really hope these jokers get sued out of existence. These kind of companies are the reason anti-discrimination laws should exist in the first place.


Just look at their YouTube video that is on their homepage www.kixeye.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5l-nnR4Bx0


He pulls out a rather large, black, dildo at 2:34... wtf?


I think he's saying "I dare you to sue me."

I hope someone takes him up on that dare.


That actually made me think they are being unfair to Zynga. That's a pretty impressive level of douchebaggery.


I'm going to assume you don't realize that by calling him a "whiner," "professional victim," and by blaming him for not responding in a way you would have liked him to, that you're dangerously close to victim-blaming. If you didn't know, hopefully now you do. Cool?

This seems like a vent piece. It's not his job to "cure" racism and he most certainly has the right to be upset. People don't like the way he's conveying that? Well that's fine -- I have the feeling that he doesn't hold their expectations in very high regard anyway


dangerously close to victim-blaming

The same way that Dallas is "dangerously close" to Texas.


Maybe you didn't notice, but I just need to point out that you responded to an article about deplorable racism with the terms whining and professional victims.

Really? You're telling someone who is being treated in a sub-human way to deal with this on the specific terms that are most comfortable to the in-power assholes who are being offensive? Not everyone can (or should) be exactly like your black friend.


It doesn't sound like the people at this company gave a damn about being racist or offensive. Also, it's a lot easier to correct someone when you out-rank them or have some stature within the company. You say your friend "dominates at his company"; the guy in this story was a peon. He's not a "professional victim", he just got shit on by a bunch of racists assholes.


While I am completely on the side of the original author here, I do agree that a lot of this requires direct and aggressive feedback. None of this passive-aggressive shit. That's why it keeps happening.

Clearly this institution has huge problems and what they are doing is totally wrong. BUT... the author just sat there and took it. He internalized the issues and let them consume him, going home, smoking weed and collapsing inward on himself. The guy is gay, so it makes sense that he reacted passive aggressively. Females tend to behave this way, which is why a lot of workplace related sexist shit still goes on. Girls don't speak up, they're submissive. They don't make it known that what is happening is wrong, and so nothing is done about it.

Obviously, in a perfect world, no one should have to speak up about shit like this! It's wrong! These guys that are acting like this are out of control. But... at the same time you cannot sit and take it and internalize it and think that magically things will get better. Stand up tall, and tell the person directly. Be clear. Be loud.

I am so happy that your (black) friend does what he does. That is EXACTLY what you need to do. And yeah, it's unfortunate that the burdon is on the person being offended when what they are doing (simply existing with a different skin color or sexual orientation) is not wrong. But... that is the only way that things will change.


the author just sat there and took it

Quote:

"I take a very deep breath through my nose. I tell him, rather I clarify for him that many things said by him and other people in the office has been racist, sexist, homophobic, transpho-

“Whoa whoa whoa, those comments you’re hearing aren’t racist; they’re jokes!”"

The guy is gay, so it makes sense that he reacted passive aggressively.

That doesn't make any sense. Being interested in same-sex sex has nothing to do with passive aggression.

Females tend to behave this way, which is why a lot of workplace related sexist shit still goes on.

Women speaking up about workplace sexism is often a job-ender, if not a career-ender. That's not submissiveness, it's business acumen.

Be clear. Be loud.

That's not a complete solution. It's step 2. Step 1 is to educate enough men and white people that we can actually have a culture where clear, loud pronouncements of wrongdoing are actually heard and taken seriously, without career repercussions.

And I'm assuming when you say "Be clear. Be loud." you're speaking to white men, right? Because women and people of color already have to do way too much education in their spare time, and it's the privileged who have the extra time and energy to pick up the slack and speak out about these issues, right?

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: