Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

She certainly doesn't say "only white" and she explicitly excludes white women ("some of the biggest barriers to progress"). You can make convoluted excuses for her, but it's obvious that she sees white people (of whatever gender or socioeconomic status) as essentially enemies, and doesn't want them as allies (let alone is willing to accept some of them as people with different, but valid opinions). It's not acceptable to write "we're not looking for Indian folks to lead this", and it shouldn't be if it's "white".

Also, it's definitely not just her, expressions like this have popped up in a number of mainstream places. I am definitely not imagining the various celebrations of white people "dying off", their share in the population dropping, and what have you.



Those conclusions exceed that evidence. This subthread went haywire as a result, so we detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11049513 and marked it off-topic.


specialk's comment thread went haywire, not this one. yaakov34's comment is a reply to the GP and very much on the same topic. Can you reconsider?


I'm happy to be wrong about this but here's why I snipped the thread where I did: (1) "some of the biggest barriers to progress" does not at all "explicitly exclude"; (2) it's not at all "obvious" that she "sees white people as enemies and doesn't want them as allies"—that's projection, filling in a lot of blanks based on assumptions; (3) the bit about "white people dying off" is hauling in a big barrel of off-topic petrol from elsewhere, the last thing we need in a flamewar. If the comment had shown any care for sticking to the evidence and/or hadn't charged into flameland, I'd agree with you.

We all need to at least try to stick to evidence regardless of ideological position. When we don't, and/or when we pour fuel on the flames, we're partly responsible for what results (in this case a bizarre turn into personal attack).


I think all your points are correct but they'd be better suited as a reply, rather than as mod action.

I don't see a personal attack anywhere and, in fact, user themselves mentions below they avoided mentioning anyone by name because this is about more than this one particular person.

Won't be fighting this, though - if you think it's better this way, so be it.


There is a subtle irony in your comment. I think it is interesting to tease out because much of the arguments on diversity come from one's own perspective.

So, if you'll indulge me, your argument is essentially 'us vs them' is a bad thing. About right? If so, I agree. We're not going to solve an exclusionary tech culture by excluding people or creating two sides to a debating war.

But what strikes me is that your comment didn't even reference Nicole Sanchez by name once. Your comment was "she" and "her" time and time again. Did you even notice yourself do it? I somehow doubt it was intentional. But I'm an optimist.


I'm happy to indulge, although HN is not the most convenient forum for long discussions.

The reason that I didn't, and don't, want to make this about Nicole Sanchez is that, unfortunately, I don't think that she is unique in holding these views, or acting on them within a mainstream company. In fact, the original comment in this thread quotes an even more explicit statement by someone else in Github (about how you can't "teach empathy to white male middle managers). There is also the matter of the "open code of conduct", subscribed to by Github among others (apparently not so open, since they refused to change it) which up and says that "we will not act on complaints of reverse racism", which rather clearly means racism against white people.

So yes, avoiding mentioning Nicole Sanchez was intentional in the sense that I am not interested in arguing ad hominem. Her name and person don't hold any particular significance for the discussion or for me personally, and I hope that you are mature enough not to retort "well, that's because she is not a white male". I am absolutely certain down to the inner core of my soul that I wouldn't care to weave her name into my comments if it was "Dwight Higginbotham".


Explain to me your subtle irony. Because frankly, it's so subtle it doesn't seem to exist.


Who cares if he didn't mention her by name? I refer to my own mother using pronouns sometimes - it's a feature of the English language. What about using pronouns in place of a proper name is problematic to you?


I was referring to the first line, "This is not work for white folks to lead."

The language of that is pretty clear to me. Look up the definition of lead.




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

Search: