[eplanit]

Maybe it's the result of telling 2+ generations of boys that "males", especially "white males" (predominant in Canada) are the root of all problems in society and the world, coupled with ever-present emphasis and promotion of girls (most recently manifested in Trudeau's absurd references to "she-cession" and "she-covery").

[dang]

Edit: actually, you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, and have ignored our repeated requests to stop. As I explained to you before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25934337), that's the line at which we ban accounts (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), so I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

---

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28539299.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, such as race and gender flamewar. I realize it's not always easy to post about this topics without being inflammatory, but the subthread we got here is an example of exactly what we don't want on HN, and this was pretty predictable from the way your comment ratcheted up the inflammation.

I think this is an instructive case - if you look at the parent subthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28539299) without this flamewar, it's clear that it's much better. Not that every comment is good or flamebait-free, but the discussion is more substantive and (not coincidentally) on topic.

[luffapi]

Have you considered banning accounts that post racist trash like this instead of banning and censoring people who rightly call it out? You’re currently stewarding a white supremacist community and I have no idea how you sleep at night.

This thread needs a lot more attention on it. Not only does it demonstrate how racist and sexist this community is, it shows nicely how complicit you personally are in allowing this to happen.

Compare your response to this racist comment to this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28542045

[dang]

People with strong ideological commitments always think the mods are stewarding their enemies, especially when they happen to run across a case of us banning someone who they agree with ideologically. The assumption is that we must have banned that account for secret ideological reasons. Actually I banned it because it broke the site guidelines egregiously, has a pattern of doing so, and has ignored previous requests to stop. I also offered to unban it if the account holder wants to commit to following the rules in the future.

If you think this is evidence of ideological bias, that's a misinterpretation—you're drawing a signal from the data (or rather, from one random observation) that doesn't exist. This is a classic cognitive bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor..., https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Since mods get this sort of attack nearly every day for years, you can understand that after a while we get a little desensitized to it—especially because the attacks are so contradictory. The other side thinks that we're secretly stewarding HN in your favor. Lots of examples here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 and I could give you hundreds more.

I think your characterization of this community is wildly inaccurate, for similar reasons. Yes, HN gets comments of all sorts—to expect anything else from an open internet community with millions of members is unrealistic. To act like the worst of the comments, or the ones that you happen to disagree with the most, characterize the community as a whole is a big non sequitur, driven by the same cognitive biases (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [e-mail]. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

That said, you're right that I missed something- I missed the pattern of behavior in the GP's comment history. That was a mistake.

[luffapi]

I strongly disagree. It’s well known that this is one of the only technology sites that will allow racist and sexist comments. I’m not alone in seeing this. Remember ShitHackerNewsSays and #hnwatch? You need to clean up your house before lecturing anyone who’s rightfully upset that you and the site owners allow this site to be a haven for hate speech.

If anyone doubts this, take a scroll through here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[dragonwriter]

> It’s we’ll known that this is one of the only technology sites that will allow racist and sexist comments.

Even, for the sake of argument, assuming that that is true it doesn't prove the ideological moderation bias you are claiming, it is consistent with HN being one of the few sites which does not actively suppress such content and those who post it for ideological reasons.

Tangentially, this reminds me that HN needs a dedicated meta-forum and a policy of moving meta-commentary that is off-topic out of other threads and into the meta-forum.

[luffapi]

If HN allows racist content, they are responsible for it. It's absolutely within their power to ban people for regularly complaining about BLM or "critical race theory". They just don't. Whether that's because HN mods are racist themselves or for some other reason, it doesn't matter because the outcome is the same. It even flies in the face of their so called reasoning because no intelligent conversation will arise from such a comment, yet they're left up anyway.

People can even predict the racist reactions this "community" will have:

https://twitter.com/cybertillie/status/1438073023500849156

[listless]

Not sure why the downvotes here. This is an objectively true fact. And worse is that it’s not limited to white males. Nobody cares about our young black men either. 1/5 die of homicide while we reduce our police presence as if they are the most pressing problem.

At least a white male stands a good chance of not being born into a high crime area they have virtually no chance of escaping.

We suck at diagnosing and solving the real problems.

[imbnwa]

And the college gap is most pronounced amongst Black men and Black women, by an absurd ratio, so its fascinating to read a bunch of, presumably, majority CS degree holders who likely aren't Black or Latino talk about how white men have it worst for college enrollment

[jimbokun]

I think the issue isn't so much declaring exactly one group as the ones who have it worst, but to be driven by empirical data about how various groups perform. I believe college enrollment per capita goes something like:

white women > black women > white men > black men

(not sure where all the other racial groups fall).

So a simplistic calculation like "women are less privileged and black people are less privileged therefor we should help black women the most when it comes to college admissions" does not address the real world disparities that exist.

[listless]

Very true. Again - nobody really seems to care about black males despite the avalanche of hashtags.

[sgt]

Is this actually happening though? I thought it was mostly just Twitter and subsequently the media feeling the need to write shocking stories. I have never had or heard someone tell me that it's bad to be white.

[torstenvl]

Oh yes. It's literally to the point that even saying "it's okay to be white" is considered alt-right and white supremacist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white

[jimbokun]

> The Guardian columnist Jason Wilson argued that the slogan It's okay to be white was devised by white supremacists in order to stoke overreaction from the left, sow confusion, embed a racist agenda in the mainstream media, and ultimately invite a backlash against anti-racist activism."

Well, looks like they were very successful then.

[torstenvl]

PSA: If you say it isn't okay to be a race and you attack everyone who says it is okay to be a race, you are not "anti-racist"

[stnmtn]

When any phrase is used exclusively by alt-right groups as a way to dogwhistle and provoke, it makes sense to label it as something that alt-righters use.

No one is seriously arguing that devoid on the context and who pushes that specific phrasing, that it's "not ok to be white"

You have to intentionally disingenuous to seriously believe that.

[refenestrator]

When that phrase is used to troll people into freaking out at an innocuous phrase, and they do so, that's on them.

[jimbokun]

If you are provoked by something as innocuous as "It's OK to be white" you really need to re-examine your commitment to tribalism and dedication to going out of your way to find things to be offended by on the Internet. (Or attached to telephone poles.)

Which was clearly the goal of this experiment, to show how quickly and vehemently people over react to anything that seems to deviate slightly from their personal ideology, no matter how slight.

[stnmtn]

I think you're dodging my main message. Of course it's ok to be white, I said that very very clearly in my comment I think, right?

The thing is, you have to see who is using and spreading that message. When it's alt-right people, you can assume malicious intent when they use it.

If someone who is not clearly alt-right says it, I wouldn't even think twice as that's literally meaningless, but you have to acknowledge how they are trying to use it as a dogwhistle

[whatshisface]

There is only one reason someone from one of those subreddits would say that line, and it's to get HN arguing about whether or not it should be taken literally, or as in indication that someone from one of those subreddits is in the room.

[NullPrefix]

It's not?

[whatshisface]

I was around on the internet when this was happening, so I can tell you the real story. Some people went around posting those signs, printed at home on A4 paper, around college campuses during a time when social justice issues were at a fever pitch in popular culture. Some very sensitive-to-social-justice-issues and sensitive-to-potential-indicators-of-people-being-insensitive-to-social-issues people saw them and became upset on Twitter. I think the signs usually got taken down, but that's what usually happens to signs.

Some people took this as a sign that an evil fifth column was going around trying to win an invisible cultural battle by putting up signs that had no racist content but that implied that someone around town would be willing to put up a racist sign if they had had the chance and the chutzpah.

Other people took this as a sign that the evil first through fourth columns were in such active pursuit of dissenters that they would get mad on Twitter and take down meticulously inkjetted pieces of A4 paper if they so much as implied that dissent was an option.

Few reasonable people took this as a sign that it was, literally, not "OK" to be a white person (what does that even mean? if it's not okay how are they supposed to stop?), but because taking down a sign can be taken to mean that the janitor disagrees with what those cultural mercenaries at Kinko's printed on it, that take got passed around a lot.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

I believe the popularity of the sign lies in its ambiguity. You see, the mainstream discourse never went as far as to say "it is not OK to be white." It was hinted at, in a more or less subtle way, through the "white privilege" (some corporations actually have obligatory trainings on this) and in thousands of indirect ways making white people guilty of the skin they were born in.

So for some people the message of that poster was infuriating. You can't openly disagree with the literal meaning, but on the other hand, many people do it internally. They believe that white people as the descendants of slave owners should inherit the collective guilt of their great forefathers (even if it was a family of a third wave of immigrants from Europe that never owned any slaves). The very fact we are even discussing that is telling in itself.

[torstenvl]

Case in point.

It is okay to be who you are. It doesn't matter your race or nationality, your sex or gender or creed. It's okay to be white. It's okay to be black. It's okay to be Asian. It's okay to be First Nations, Native, Indigenous. It's okay to be male or female or intersexed or trans. It's okay to be Catholic or Protestant or Sunni or Shia or Jewish or Orthodox or Baha'i or Zoroastrian or Buddhist or Hindu or Taoist or Shinto or any other creed.

For all people everywhere, it is emphatically okay to exist.

If you disagree with that, then I think you need to re-examine who is engaging in supremacist politics.

[ratww]

It definitely is ok to be white. It’s not ok to be a white supremacist, though.

Not everything has to be black and white and divisive.

[myWindoonn]

"White" is meaningless, isn't it? At best it's a judgement about skin pigmentation.

[scohesc]

Every educational system that's worth it's salt here where I live in Canada is going full-bore on the whole "critical race theory" and how "white people have oppressed every other culture for centuries"

Trust me, it's happening.

[gruez]

Can you provide links on what the materials look like?

[hdjjhhvvhga]

This kind of generalizing is a slap in the face of many nations that are predominantly white but have never colonized any country.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

My comment got flagged - and that's fine, but I'd like to hear an explanation.

Mine is as follows. Historically, the colonization was the domain of countries with access to sea, especially a long coast line - starting with Vikings. Among European countries, the colonization was done mainly by the Brits, Spain, Portugal, France, the predecessors of the modern Netherlands and Belgium.

Other European countries either didn't have access to sea, or had it but for various reasons weren't interested in colonization - for example because they were focused on land wars with their neighbors. You won't find many German or Austrian colonies. And you can talk to the Swiss how white people are guilty of colonialism, but you won't find any understanding there. Some with the whole Eastern Europe.

I understand this simplistic point of view ("white people invaded the whole world") seems attractive to some, but it's false, unjust and racist. If you say, "Several European countries colonized a significant portion of the world" - this is accurate, true, and definitely not racist. But it seems people don't care about facts or being precise anymore: it's all about emotion and fitting one's limited set of views.

===

EDIT: To people who flag and downvote: I'm a very open-minded person. I don't want to live in my bubble. So please, talk to me. Explain why I'm wrong - or at least why you disagree. HN is a discussion forum, let's use this opportunity to actually transmit some useful information. To me, downvoting and flagging says, "I disagree but I can't find any counter-arguments".

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Even though the issues you mention are real, you failed to provide a casual link between the two phenomena in question. "They are telling me I'm responsible for inequality in today's society so I won't go to college"? I'm not buying it.

[AnimalMuppet]

They may perceive the "you're the problem" message as originating from colleges, or being especially strong there. They may not want to spend four years in an environment like that.

[gjsman-1000]

Why would you go to a place that is increasingly expensive, people are increasingly open about how there are alternatives to college, and your professors and other students look down on you for being white and successful?

[jessaustin]

Here we seem to have identified some factors beyond the boring old "CRT has destroyed education" bullshit. Students who are already "successful" have no need of college whatever their race or gender. College is ridiculously expensive, especially when compared to what was available in e.g. 1970.

[fbelzile]

First, I don't think it's been going on for 2+ generations.

Second, who is saying "white males" are the root of all problems? I mean, it's objectively true since we've predominately been in positions of power (European & new world) for the greater part of history. That said, I'm sure women can mess things up equally as bad if they were in the same positions of power.

Third, there's still an under-representation of women in STEM. Whether that's because a chicken-and-egg problem with visibility (or that women, on average, just don't want those jobs) is yet to be seen.

[lvass]

>it's objectively true since we've predominately been in positions of power (European & new world) for the greater part of history

Excuse me? That's ridiculously eurocentric and only contributes to "visibility problems" you seem to care about. It may have been somewhat true for a few hundred years, but there are many cultures that stood millenia without any european influence whatsoever. And in the very near future, asian countries will surpass the west in terms of influence, as it has been for a long time.

[lordgroff]

Under representation of women in STEM very much depends on what field we're taking about. CS? Sure. But what about, say, dentistry or medicine? At about the beginning of the millennium, the sex ratios equaled out at medical and dental schools, and every year since then, fewer and fewer men study in these fields compared to women.

[11thEarlOfMar]

Men, yes. White, no. Looking at the most extreme form of 'problems' a society can have, 4 of the 10 most deadly genocides were in Asia, 3 were in Africa, 2 in Europe/Russia, 1 in the Middle East.

All of humanity has the capacity to both oppress and murder en masse.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/genocides.htm

[BobbyJo]

> Second, who is saying "white males" are the root of all problems? I mean, it's objectively true since we've predominately been in positions of power....

So... you then. You are an example of who is saying what you are saying.

[jimbokun]

> for the greater part of history

Wow, you certainly have a shallow view of history.

> Third, there's still an under-representation of women in STEM.

And there is an under representation of men on college campuses.

Why is one of those worth worrying about and not the other? Or are both cause for serious concern?

[rhcom2]

Acknowledging a possible privileged position is not being called "the root of all problems in society and the world".

[gjhh244]

Privilege is primarily about money, not race. If you want to help poor people, then tax the rich more regardless of race and underprivileged minorities will benefit naturally more.

All this obsession with race is just a way for the elites to urn attention away from actual solutions which would hurt their profits.

[rhcom2]

> Privilege is primarily about money, not race.

In the United State our history makes it absolutely about race too. The legacy of slavery and racial segregation didn't magically disappear in 1965. The limited amount I know about Canadian history is that something similar could be said about the treatment of First Nations.

[gjhh244]

Of course discrimination has greatly affected wealth distribution in the past. Still, I believe wealth re-distribution through Scandinavian style welfare state is the answer, not lectures about white-privilege and minority quotas. These days simply being white doesn't make you privileged if you were born into poor family, and being black doesn't automatically make you underprivileged if your parents happen to be wealthy.

[rhcom2]

There are privileges that come from race completely independent of wealth. Henry Gates Jr. getting arrested for "breaking in" to his own home while black is an anecdotal example of the kind of thing I'm talking about but it is shown in the data on policing and race too.

If you agree the US has a history of slavery and racial segregation, of course it will still offer privileges to white people because that's historically how the system was setup. When do you think that stopped affecting black people?

[Mary-Jane]

"Hey Whitey! Check your privilege!"

You're right, there's no insult intended when people say that. Apparently whiteys have thin skin too!

[dang]

Please do not take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[endisneigh]

I’m curious - who is saying this? Have an example? Seems like an exaggeration. I’m sure it’s happened in some isolated cases, but I’m skeptical that this is a prevailing attitude

[eplanit]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=white+males+root+of+all+evil

[rhcom2]

2 out of 4 are arguing against the trope and the first link is blogspam.