←back to thread

95 points elsewhen | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Jonnax ◴[] No.23308027[source]
Hacker news is a really good site for tech discussion.

But when it comes to anything about diversity / harassment in the workplace, it seems like a group of people crop up needing to tell everyone that they're the real victims

There's a signicant subset of people that cry the loudest of censorship only when it comes to communities having a stance against racism, sexism and homophobia.

In any other discussion about Wikipedia, there would be a significant concensus that Wikipedia has a unwelcoming to new editors community.

replies(6): >>23308098 #>>23308447 #>>23309978 #>>23310000 #>>23310471 #>>23310656 #
thosakwe ◴[] No.23310471[source]
Hit the nail on the head.

This site is incapable of having nuanced conversations about this, because opinions that the loudest voices disagree with are downvoted + flagged into oblivion. This is significant when talking about diversity, because it means minority voices are silenced, and without those voices, such a conversation is meaningless.

For example, look at the comments thread whenever "James Damore," "cancel culture," or "affirmative action" comes up. That should be proof alone that HN is never going to have an actual impactful conversation about this... Ever.

I'd prefer if the mods just banned these discussions forever, because it's exhausting, and forever doomed to end up as a "diversity is bad" conversation.

replies(1): >>23310657 #
microcolonel ◴[] No.23310657[source]
> I'd prefer if the mods just banned these discussions forever, because it's exhausting, and forever doomed to end up as a "diversity is bad" conversation.

Funny thing is, it looks the other way around from the other perspective.

Maybe what you're seeing is not a bias against race- and sex-based DIE initiatives, but your first taste of balance in discussions about them.

Maybe because you assume that your argument is correct, whenever you see the other side at all, you feel like there's an imbalance, when perhaps it's just that you have a warped view of the landscape of opinions on these matters.

replies(2): >>23310850 #>>23310988 #
1. Fjolsvith ◴[] No.23310988[source]
Frankly, the parent's point is more visible as the rare, generally dissenting discussion is almost always downvoted and show grey.
replies(1): >>23311970 #
2. luckylion ◴[] No.23311970[source]
In this submission at least, it seems to be primarily low-effort comments that are downvoted. By that I mean wild assumptions, no effort to provide any evidence to back them up or just some popular saying and a dash of moralization that suggests whoever isn't sharing the opinion of the commenter is a bad person, does not want to engage in an honest conversation, has a hidden agenda and wants to drive away the good people etc.

When someone is offered a conversation and results to name-calling and straw-manning, isn't a downvote what you'd expect?