I think it works here when it works, and it doesn't when it doesn't.
If you're a straight white male (note: I'm not), then I think social dis/approval works well for you.
I think that conversations about privilege are hard and, unfortunately, often times the social majority is united against the implications that they might be part and parcel to the inequity in our systems.
This isn't specific to this site, but I'm frequently appalled by what I see in posts regarding race, gender, etc. and there is no social repercussion for people who post in bad faith simply because it is in the majority's best interest to self-regulate in a meaningful way.
(And now here I am, worried about the "social disapproval" of this post, even though I think that the contents are worthy of posting and the tone is respectful)
I don't think this post will have social disapproval. I appreciate your comments.
>I think it works here when it works, and it doesn't when it doesn't.
Isn't that how everything works? Even the best of things?
>If you're a straight white male (note: I'm not), then I think social dis/approval works well for you.
I think that's a stretch. The west coast where SV is based is full of LGBT+ people. Sure, it's probably mostly white but I don't think I've ever seen a case of racism on here and if it existed, dang probably nuked it from orbit.
> Isn't that how everything works? Even the best of things?
You're right, I think I was using that to ease into my argument in a delicate way.
> The west coast where SV is based is full of LGBT+ people.
To be clear LGBT+ != !straight-white-male (the set !straight-white-male includes but is not equal to LGBT+). I've seen really problematic racism on hackernews. Problematic not because it's extreme (slurs, lynchings, etc) but because it's "logical" in a way that disenfranchises black people (for example).
An example (and I don't keep tabs of this, so I don't have a link, but it was in the past month or so) was of someone saying, with respect to a racially sensitive topic "As a black man I think... about this topic." and the replies were overwhelmingly "That you feel the need to qualify with 'As a black man' proves that you are racist. I, on the other hand, do not consider race, ergo I am not racist".
These are well-suited-to-hackernews arguments that invalidate the perspective of anyone outside of the accepted majority and thus perpetuate racism.
I think this is the last I'm going to say on the matter. I'm not trying to argue with you, and I have no evidence that you have done anything like what I'm talking about here. I just think that it's important not to ignore what other people might perceive, especially those with different contexts & experiences, who might perceive things that you do not.
exit: removed unnecessary parenthetical about Dave Chappelle (for obvious reasons) and clarified a bit.
> “This isn't specific to this site, but I'm frequently appalled by what I see in posts regarding race, gender, etc.”
frankly, i can’t even engage in, nor even charitably characterize, most discussions about privilege, race, and gender on hn. which is fine, but it’s a curiously significant blindspot (for reasons you raise, and beyond).
How many is too many (people to piss off)? Take your statement in another context.
Say native dissidents pissing off local government / foreign natural resource exploitists.
Or, americans of african ancestry attempting to be heard / get equal rights in 50's america. They were certainly socially disapproved and silenced by society at large.
Social oppression is the most insidious form of censorship. It needs to be combated with the most vigor and rigor.
I don't disagree with you to an extent, but humans are wired for social behaviors and there is a positive social pressure to be had. Of course your examples are real and pervasive, but we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That being said, this is hacker news which definitely seems more composed than most online forums so I think social pressure here is useful.
