[Noisebridge-discuss] XY Combinator
Rachel McConnell
rachel at xtreme.com
Tue May 24 19:59:52 UTC 2011
I'm white and I don't consider myself racist. Nevertheless, I don't
make racist jokes, because I'm a member of the powerful side of that
particular power imbalance. From this side, it's very easy to say that
it's just a joke, and that it doesn't reinforce racism, and why do they
get so upset? "It's just a joke." "Don't be so uptight." "They do it
all the time themselves."
But I've read a lot from people of color saying that they don't
appreciate such jokes from whites. I am willing to take their word for
it that racist jokes do harm them. Why would I know better? It's kinda
like the chilling effect of RIAA lawsuits - maybe any one instance isn't
so bad, but the overall effect is to make the world a slightly worse
place. So I don't make racist jokes, and I come down hard on other
white people who do make them.
Taylor, why do you, as a member of the powerful side on both sexism and
racism, believe jokes of this kind don't reinforce stereotypes? Your
first-hand experience, as a white male, really just doesn't apply here.
Also do you think that stereotype reinforcement is the only evil that
such jokes can do?
The term for this particular kind of "doesn't do any harm, don't take it
so seriously" thinking is privilege. It's really hard to see privileged
behavior in one's own self. Anyone who doesn't get this, please read up
a bit on white privilege, male privilege, and/or straight privilege, and
try to understand another point of view.
Rachel
PS. I'm ignoring the site in question because I haven't bothered to look
at it. I'm just responding to your statements here.
PPS. It's not very science-y to disbelieve something because it makes
sense. Many, maybe most, things that make sense are actually true.
PPPS. Yeah I haven't met you. Maybe you're not a white male. If not,
well done, Lady Troll of Color. You got me.
On 5/24/11 11:46 AM, Taylor Alexander wrote:
> (thinks more)
>
> I think the crux of the issue is that I don't believe that jokes that
> rely on stereotypes necessarily reinforce them. I know its not true
> because I make all kinds of jokes based on stereotypes that I strongly
> disagree with.
>
> Sure, the idea that it reinforces stereotypes *makes sense*, but since
> when is something true just because it makes sense? We're all science-y
> and know that's not how things work.
>
> Maybe there's some research behind it, but it sounds to me like
> something people assume because it makes sense, and I personally feel
> like I have first hand experience that disproves it.
> -Taylor
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Taylor Alexander
> <tlalexander at gmail.com <mailto:tlalexander at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Interesting reactions. While everything everyone said is intelligent
> and I generally agree with it, I think some people are taking this
> way too seriously. Yes, this implies only men do startups, which is
> totally untrue. Yes, this implies all smart men are datable, which
> is untrue. Yes, it implies several things that are untrue, and
> hopefully we're all smart enough to know that those things are untrue.
>
> To me this is the standard "nerds can't get girls" joke, and I think
> its an amusing and implementation. Especially since I follow the
> startup scene and read about Y-Combinator every day. I also think
> its completely harmless.
>
> All the arguments against it are arguments against politically
> incorrect humor as a whole, and I disagree with the idea that every
> joke has to be respectful of everybody. We need to be able to say
> things we think are funny without having to make sure that every
> part of their content and everything their content implies is
> completely factually accurate and fair. That would be terrible. We
> need to be able to ignore some of the facts of a situation and just
> laugh at it. I think that is a really important core human need.
>
> That doesn't mean I think ignoring womens/mens/blacks/whites/etc's
> rights is okay, I just think we need to hold our culture to a higher
> standard. We shouldn't expect people's thoughts to be binary and
> unchanging. We should expect people to be smart enough to know when
> something is a joke and when it isn't. I understand that that's
> expecting a lot. People are bad at filtering everything out, and
> there is some risk that it will get to their head. But when it comes
> time to make real decisions, they should know what thoughts are
> theirs and how they truly feel about something. I tell rape jokes
> all the time (yes, you hate me now if you didn't already), but I
> also fight strongly for women's rights and equality. I think rape is
> a terrible terrible thing and its pervasiveness is completely
> unacceptable. But I still appreciate ignoring all that stuff and
> just joking about it. Louis CK tells a joke about
> raping Hitler that's hilarious. I joke a lot about racism, but only
> because I think racism is so completely dumb that the people who
> still are racist just seem comically out of touch to me (though the
> way they behave obviously isn't comical).
>
> My point is, I don't want to live in a society where you can't tell
> a harmless "nerds can't get girls joke" without being accused of
> perpetuating our rape culture and objectifying women. Those issues
> are incredibly important, but finding them in a harmless joke like
> this, in my opinion, is taking things way too far. (Its also
> probably an ineffective way of getting your message out)
>
> <Steals flame suit from interpetive arson>
> -Taylor
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Ken Adler <ken.adler at gmail.com
> <mailto:ken.adler at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I wonder how long that picture on the home page stays there.
> Anyone want to start a betting pool?
>
> I know one of the guys in the picture and gave him the heads up
> about the site. He (a) was not aware of the site,and (b) was
> "not amused" that his picture was being used without his
> permission.. especially in this context.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Tom Cauchois
> <tcauchois at gmail.com <mailto:tcauchois at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> This is an example of something that's hard to pick up on
> for guys who have never really thought about it, because I
> don't think it's trying to be offensive. It's just trying
> to make fun of startup founders.
>
> The part that makes it obvious, and the part that really
> annoys me, is again "all startup founders are guys and we
> need to get them dates through the internet". That's a
> denial of the great women in tech and a discouragement for
> more women to enter tech. Maybe low impact because it's a
> joke site, but it's also the pervasive thinking, which sucks
> because a gender balanced tech workforce would be sweet.
>
> It also implies these guys are dateable, in spite of "The
> Social Network".
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Christie Dudley
> <longobord at gmail.com <mailto:longobord at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Griffin Boyce
> <griffinboyce at gmail.com <mailto:griffinboyce at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I would think in this case that the guys would be
> the "commodity" since they are the ones vying for
> the affection of those who are considered to be
> socially-superior.
>
> uh... no, not really. When you seek money for your
> startup, it's the money that's the commodity, not the
> unique original idea that you have. Last I checked, the
> whole point of money is that it's a commodity.
>
> I found the whole thing more sad than funny. It seemed a
> lame attempt at humor, relying on stereotypes (thus
> reinforcing them) to make a joke that at best was really
> childish, like laughing at a disabled kid for not being
> able to play ball like normal kids. Not only do I agree
> with Liz about the assumption that it's only men doing
> startups, but entirely found the treatment of women on
> that site uncomfortable. Although I suspect they meant
> it to be creepy, it is neither truly over the top, nor
> not-creepy, thus failing on either side.
>
> They might have been able to pull it out with
> interesting embellishment or even meaningful
> credibility, but failed there, too. I mean seriously, no
> feedback form? Just an email address? You never got to
> know anything about the girls, not even how they select
> them. They could have taken that humorously quite a long
> ways, potentially making the women seem even *gasp*
> desirable in any way at all other than "lovely young".
> But by that omission, they so thoroughly commoditize the
> women, they assure that it falls flat. (They seriously
> would do better with cattle!)
>
> To me at least, it's coded as access to romance and
> basic human affection, which (again in my
> experience) isn't limited to "access to a vagina."
> In fact, it's incredibly insulting that it's so
> frequently assumed that "all men want" is sexual
> interaction. And yes, I've met (and frequently
> dated!) men who were exceedingly polite and
> respectful, but were too shy in most circumstances
> to make a good first impression. The same goes for
> women, come to think of it. Something like this
> could be a good way to meet people for all genders
> and sexualities.
>
>
> Oh, and I guess you missed the FAQ where they tell you
> they don't offer boys to date. "Our model works best."
> was their response. It makes
>
> I think the biggest reason the joke here falls flat is
> because it's not even outrageous enough that it's clear
> to people who read it through that it's a joke. Or maybe
> that's the joke?
>
> Christie
> _______
> I'm the kind of person who finds and makes choices where
> there appear to be none.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ken Adler
> 510-290-5806 <tel:510-290-5806> (cell)
> Ken at adler.net <mailto:Ken at adler.net>
> ----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list