Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term
https://www.zdnet.com/article/infosec-community-disagrees-with-changing-black-hat-term-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
107 comments
I’m not taking a stance on the issue, but this quote from the article illustrates how blacklist vs. whitelist is different than the examples you gave:
> “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.”
The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolster their argument, but I believe it’s also at the core of the argument against the use of terms like blacklist/whitelist. The idea is that the black vs. white = evil vs. good (like, MTG card colors) can “spill over” into dark skin vs. light skin = evil vs. good. This is an interesting article related to this effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-...
Ok fine, I’ll take a weakly-held stance: this seems like a bit of a stretch, and distracts from the more serious ways in which systemic racism manifests itself. On the other hand, I see no need to become outraged—words fall out of favor all the time (go play with the Google n-grams viewer to see for yourself).
> “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.”
The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolster their argument, but I believe it’s also at the core of the argument against the use of terms like blacklist/whitelist. The idea is that the black vs. white = evil vs. good (like, MTG card colors) can “spill over” into dark skin vs. light skin = evil vs. good. This is an interesting article related to this effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-...
Ok fine, I’ll take a weakly-held stance: this seems like a bit of a stretch, and distracts from the more serious ways in which systemic racism manifests itself. On the other hand, I see no need to become outraged—words fall out of favor all the time (go play with the Google n-grams viewer to see for yourself).
I think your argument is legitimate, but I do think there's a distinction between naturally letting words fall out of favor and forcing it. Words naturally fall out of favor when people simply stop using them - this is a process as old as language itself. This is separate from a group of people unilaterally changing commonly accepted terminology and getting upset and censoring when people don't go along with it.
The former, nobody thinks about - see words like "tubular", "rad", "phat", etc. The latter is rather Orwellian, as it's about enforcing a behavioral change on people. People (at least the ones I know) generally hate this, especially in the West.
The former, nobody thinks about - see words like "tubular", "rad", "phat", etc. The latter is rather Orwellian, as it's about enforcing a behavioral change on people. People (at least the ones I know) generally hate this, especially in the West.
When I think black and white I think night and day and not evil and good.
It's an unfortunate quirk of human brains that fear of the dark is a familiar experience to most children and many adults. I suppose it has something to do with nocturnal tigers hunting our ancestors. Association between nighttime and fear seems biologically unavoidable.
Agree completely, I remember the books by brothers grimm as a young child. Trolls and goblins and all manner of imaginative creatures used to keep me up at night.
I think the real solutions is to stop using the terms black and white to describe people. Especially since it is so inaccurate.
I wonder what would happen with terms like "grey area". Like in:
A: Is this thing bad or good, legal or illegal?
B: I think it's a grey area.
A: Is this thing bad or good, legal or illegal?
B: I think it's a grey area.
This is quiet common in India also. Black is considered bad, evil and ugly and it spills over into the language. I agree, we need more concrete actions than just thanking things, but they are not mutually exclusive.
What about black beans and white rice: https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/moors-and-chri...
While I think some of the name changes going around the community at the moment aren't productive, it's not a good comparison. The black and white in black beans and white rice are accurate descriptions of their color. "Black" is not being used to signify that these are malicious beans, out to cause harm.
Neither is the malice of black hats associated in any tiniest way with anyone's skin color.
The black==bad is a fundamental feature of all humans. Black people also fear the dark and not the sun.
The black==bad is a fundamental feature of all humans. Black people also fear the dark and not the sun.
I agree with your conclusion (I think we need to be very careful to edit language, lest we forget the lessons of the past) but from the list you gave none of them have a negative connotation - except perhaps black swan, but it's a reference more to rarity. Black hat has an immediate negative connotation.
Thank you, voice of reason!
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be
the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to
make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be
"cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is
to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who
never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
This is a damn good summary.
C.S. Lewis had Dolores Umbridge's number long before she was ever dreamt up.
Also "MITM" (man in the middle), "Whitelist" and "Blacklist", even "Sanity Check".
This is all very aligned with a general trend of cheap moralization and virtue signalling that actually achieves nothing but makes as much noise as possible and poison every discussion with identity politics, by seeing prejudice and bigotry everywhere.
This is all very aligned with a general trend of cheap moralization and virtue signalling that actually achieves nothing but makes as much noise as possible and poison every discussion with identity politics, by seeing prejudice and bigotry everywhere.
> actually achieves nothing
It's worse than nothing. It sucks up oxygen that could be used elsewhere.
Outrage/attention is a finite resource, and the more of it is blown on topics like this, the less is available to spend on things like income inequality, hiring biases, incarceration rates, police brutality, social programs, diversity/representation in media/politics, etc. At this moment in time the Black Lives Matter movement has precious momentum that must not be squandered.
To put it bluntly: distractions like this are actively harmful, and become more harmful the more attention they receive. Focus is crucial.
It's worse than nothing. It sucks up oxygen that could be used elsewhere.
Outrage/attention is a finite resource, and the more of it is blown on topics like this, the less is available to spend on things like income inequality, hiring biases, incarceration rates, police brutality, social programs, diversity/representation in media/politics, etc. At this moment in time the Black Lives Matter movement has precious momentum that must not be squandered.
To put it bluntly: distractions like this are actively harmful, and become more harmful the more attention they receive. Focus is crucial.
Absolutely. BLM asks to put a stop to police brutality/racism and stupid white people decide to change the phrase "grandfathered" or "you guys" in response. Or to put down entire languages like Spanish because they use gendered nouns. A more tone deaf response would be hard to achieve. Even those of us who have supported the cause against police brutality and racism for years are now losing interest and energy. If this is the outcome of the protests, they were indeed all for naught, just spreading corona so a bunch of idiots can feel better about themselves thinking they made a change in the world by censoring others' speech. How absurd.
> just spreading corona
And causing riots, billions in property damages and innocent civilian lives lost (even before we’re considering the corona).
At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.
And causing riots, billions in property damages and innocent civilian lives lost (even before we’re considering the corona).
At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.
> At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.
This is a huge stretch. Just because a movement has been exploited by opportunists and some bad apples doesn't make it net negative. Also keep in mind that the victims of systemic racism have suffered for centuries and continue to as their complaints fall on deaf ears.
This is a huge stretch. Just because a movement has been exploited by opportunists and some bad apples doesn't make it net negative. Also keep in mind that the victims of systemic racism have suffered for centuries and continue to as their complaints fall on deaf ears.
> At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.
What is your solution to bring awareness against police brutality and systematic racism?
What is your solution to bring awareness against police brutality and systematic racism?
> What is your solution to bring awareness against police brutality
Unlawful police brutality is bad regardless of who it is being committed against. Framing this as a "black" issue and not a general issue which everyone can unite on, is divisive.
The solution is obviously to provide better training for new police officers and foster a better attitude among the police force (in general, new or old) towards their role in society.
> systematic racism
I don't believe in unfounded claims. Are there actual data to back this extraordinary claim of systematic racism today (as opposed to in the past), or is this just internet-outrage?
Unlawful police brutality is bad regardless of who it is being committed against. Framing this as a "black" issue and not a general issue which everyone can unite on, is divisive.
The solution is obviously to provide better training for new police officers and foster a better attitude among the police force (in general, new or old) towards their role in society.
> systematic racism
I don't believe in unfounded claims. Are there actual data to back this extraordinary claim of systematic racism today (as opposed to in the past), or is this just internet-outrage?
> Framing this as a "black" issue and not a general issue which everyone can unite on, is divisive.
Everyone is united, why do you think they are not. A racist person obviously would not be united on this issue.
> The solution is obviously to provide better training for new police officers
So why wasn't this done earlier?
> (as opposed to in the past)
Ok, so what is your solution to fix the effects of past systematic racism.
Everyone is united, why do you think they are not. A racist person obviously would not be united on this issue.
> The solution is obviously to provide better training for new police officers
So why wasn't this done earlier?
> (as opposed to in the past)
Ok, so what is your solution to fix the effects of past systematic racism.
> Ok, so what is your solution to fix the effects of past systematic racism.
Whats your solution to fixing past inequality of wealth? Shall we disown the rich of their personal property?
Some problems we just decide not to fix and just move on, trying to create something with a more fair, and level playing field from here on.
I don’t see how we can handle this any differently.
Implementing systematic new racism in our time to fight racism from past times obviously won’t work and will just create new sets of problems for future generations.
Whats your solution to fixing past inequality of wealth? Shall we disown the rich of their personal property?
Some problems we just decide not to fix and just move on, trying to create something with a more fair, and level playing field from here on.
I don’t see how we can handle this any differently.
Implementing systematic new racism in our time to fight racism from past times obviously won’t work and will just create new sets of problems for future generations.
I see that you conveniently ignored my question.
> trying to create something with a more fair, and level playing field from here on.
Saying it easy, those words are empty if you chose not to implement it.
Who wants to implement new systematic racism, do you?
> trying to create something with a more fair, and level playing field from here on.
Saying it easy, those words are empty if you chose not to implement it.
Who wants to implement new systematic racism, do you?
> This is all very aligned with a general trend of cheap moralization and virtue signalling that actually achieves nothing but makes as much noise as possible and poison every discussion with identity politics
This is not a side-effect of identity politics. This is its main intention.
If you want to help keep rational discourse alive, you need to reject identity politics at its root.
Reject the concept, reject the argument, reject the discussion.
This is not a side-effect of identity politics. This is its main intention.
If you want to help keep rational discourse alive, you need to reject identity politics at its root.
Reject the concept, reject the argument, reject the discussion.
Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It reminds me of that joke from The Office where Michael acts like the term "Mexican" is problematic.
If there is a real problem here I am genuinely happy to hear about it and try to understand. I would love to see more diversity in computer science and I think the entire industry would benefit. But it sure feels like some rich white engineer taking advantage of a social movement to broadcast their own virtue.
If there is a real problem here I am genuinely happy to hear about it and try to understand. I would love to see more diversity in computer science and I think the entire industry would benefit. But it sure feels like some rich white engineer taking advantage of a social movement to broadcast their own virtue.
Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument.
The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is.
To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc.
(Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means many things, but that's the argument being made).
The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is.
To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc.
(Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means many things, but that's the argument being made).
This thought just crossed my mind: I think we should stop using the yellow colour at the semaphore because some Asians may find it offensive, right? Like if it's yellow it's a warning!
Boulderdash. There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>.
We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger!
How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple?
Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the color of the negative cable. What's white? Oh, ground? You mean where everything ends up going? Heavens, pull the wiring out!
This moral panic reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis.
>"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
Truly, in these Times have the moral busybodies had their Jimmy's rustled.
We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger!
How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple?
Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the color of the negative cable. What's white? Oh, ground? You mean where everything ends up going? Heavens, pull the wiring out!
This moral panic reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis.
>"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
Truly, in these Times have the moral busybodies had their Jimmy's rustled.
Well said, and I like the quote. I think it's telling that the top response to your comment completely dodges the substance of the comment and just attacks your "diction." It seems to me that these moral purists are basically in a state of war - any rational argument against their position is met with overreactions, emotional responses, and insults.
Sometimes I wonder whether some of this ridiculousness is put on by foreign influence operations. Because I could not imagine a more effective strategy to hand the election to Trump. Most people I know are rather appalled at the orwellian censorship of the current movement.
Sometimes I wonder whether some of this ridiculousness is put on by foreign influence operations. Because I could not imagine a more effective strategy to hand the election to Trump. Most people I know are rather appalled at the orwellian censorship of the current movement.
[deleted]
Please check your diction and spelling before launching into a linguistics-oriented tirade.
> There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>.
Do I ever have a new word for you. Have you ever heard of the term 'yellow peril'? Color coding is a remarkably easy and efficient way to encode racial stereotypes and spread propaganda.
Nowadays the association with said color is lessened (though some elements still appear among racists) but it seems rather ignorant of history to ignore the uses of color coding for racial dogwhistles.
Do I ever have a new word for you. Have you ever heard of the term 'yellow peril'? Color coding is a remarkably easy and efficient way to encode racial stereotypes and spread propaganda.
Nowadays the association with said color is lessened (though some elements still appear among racists) but it seems rather ignorant of history to ignore the uses of color coding for racial dogwhistles.
Black people also find darkness and black things scary and bad vs light and white things. Night time and spiders etc are universal.
THAT's what makes this an argument that fails a "sanity check".
(They proposed "incoherent" as an alternative to sanity. Well, people can be insane and people can also be incoherent, and both are negative labels when applied to a person. What does the one improve over the other? I say nothing.
It's a mixed bag. I don't see anything wrong with at least starting to steer the great ship of inertia away from "him" and "man" for everything when we do have perfectly servicable, not ridiculous, not confusing alternatives without even resorting to hir/sie/etc. It hurts no one to say their in place of his. Even "person-hours" is fine even though it's an extra syllable. In fact the new term is simply the truth. It's simply the more accurate communication, which all these supposed rationalists should be all for.
THAT's what makes this an argument that fails a "sanity check".
(They proposed "incoherent" as an alternative to sanity. Well, people can be insane and people can also be incoherent, and both are negative labels when applied to a person. What does the one improve over the other? I say nothing.
It's a mixed bag. I don't see anything wrong with at least starting to steer the great ship of inertia away from "him" and "man" for everything when we do have perfectly servicable, not ridiculous, not confusing alternatives without even resorting to hir/sie/etc. It hurts no one to say their in place of his. Even "person-hours" is fine even though it's an extra syllable. In fact the new term is simply the truth. It's simply the more accurate communication, which all these supposed rationalists should be all for.
> Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress.
It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
It is offensive because the word "black" in the phrase has negative connotation, right? If so, the stance Google engineer took was not progressive enough. I suggest a purge with rigorous examination on at least the following phrases on top of my mind:
black cat
black money
black sheep
black frost
black market
black humor
black plague
black widow
black monday
black ops
black hand
black death
black magic
black propaganda
black economy
black book
black prince
black eye
black marketeer
blackmail
Oh, and do remember to cancel this website: https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-black/, as well as all the discussion about the sensation of the black color.
In a racist's eyes, everything is about racism.
black cat
black money
black sheep
black frost
black market
black humor
black plague
black widow
black monday
black ops
black hand
black death
black magic
black propaganda
black economy
black book
black prince
black eye
black marketeer
blackmail
Oh, and do remember to cancel this website: https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-black/, as well as all the discussion about the sensation of the black color.
In a racist's eyes, everything is about racism.
And I don't understand the downvote. The Google justice fighter didn't ask to rename "black hat" because of negative connotation? If it is about negative connotation, why is it wrong to examine all phrases, especially the ones like "black market" and "black hand"?
It’s wrong because of bikeshedding and spends resources on unimportant things.
Racism is important. Hacking is important. Spending cycles working in these areas is better than helping those who struggle with googling “is blackhat a racist term?”
In this case the speaker shut off discussion anyway by not participating. So he’s not “examining all phrases,” he’s issuing judgement on a phrase. And his judgement seems silly to me.
I don’t know the subject so perhaps his material is great, but based on this one action it seems unlikely that his judgement would be great on blackhat hacking, but ridiculous in this area.
Racism is important. Hacking is important. Spending cycles working in these areas is better than helping those who struggle with googling “is blackhat a racist term?”
In this case the speaker shut off discussion anyway by not participating. So he’s not “examining all phrases,” he’s issuing judgement on a phrase. And his judgement seems silly to me.
I don’t know the subject so perhaps his material is great, but based on this one action it seems unlikely that his judgement would be great on blackhat hacking, but ridiculous in this area.
[deleted]
I’ve seen a lot of good examples of black being bad, but black also is a positive thing in many contexts.
Amex Black card? Or other cards? A sign of prestige.
Black limousines and towncars are seen as prestigious.
Black clothes make you look thinner; plenty of women like to outfit themselves in black as much as possible.
The gothic look primarily deals in black. Never seen or heard anyone try to link some sort of racial relation to it.
It’s weird that “black <something>” is now being looked at so critically, especially since “black people” isn’t even a properly descriptive term, but one that may even have roots itself as the “white man’s N word” back in the day. However it seems to the acceptable phrase. I’m now going to see what the epidemiology of that is, I’m curious who came up with it.
Amex Black card? Or other cards? A sign of prestige.
Black limousines and towncars are seen as prestigious.
Black clothes make you look thinner; plenty of women like to outfit themselves in black as much as possible.
The gothic look primarily deals in black. Never seen or heard anyone try to link some sort of racial relation to it.
It’s weird that “black <something>” is now being looked at so critically, especially since “black people” isn’t even a properly descriptive term, but one that may even have roots itself as the “white man’s N word” back in the day. However it seems to the acceptable phrase. I’m now going to see what the epidemiology of that is, I’m curious who came up with it.
I should elaborate my point slightly.
Even Wikipedia says this: “For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation” [1]
So to many (maybe not in US) it already is an offensive term. My thought would be why not move past the term of black people to something more universal with no historical questionability, and not get caught up in “is black <something>” offensive. Instead of having to fight and question a lot of black <something> due to its actual color, embrace a more transcendent new term (much like Indian vs Indigenous Person vs Native American, that movement)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
Edit for minor typo
Even Wikipedia says this: “For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation” [1]
So to many (maybe not in US) it already is an offensive term. My thought would be why not move past the term of black people to something more universal with no historical questionability, and not get caught up in “is black <something>” offensive. Instead of having to fight and question a lot of black <something> due to its actual color, embrace a more transcendent new term (much like Indian vs Indigenous Person vs Native American, that movement)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
Edit for minor typo
My understanding is that the terms “black hat” and “white hat” stem from Western movies where the villains and heroes would typically wear black and white hats, respectively. I’m not aware of a racial association, but perhaps I just don’t know about it?
There isn’t and it is indeed comes from westerns, tho this predates what most people would consider the classical / spaghetti western era and has its origins in early black and white and silent films.
I think it is worthwhile to examine why westerns chose to use the symbolism of black and white hats.
Probably because black has been associated to “death” for millennia (it’s the color of night, which is traditionally dangerous), while white is associated to cleanliness and light. We’re talking Egyptian times, Ancient Greece, etc, when there wasn’t really a concept of “white skin” (more or less everyone in highly-populated European and North-African regions had brown skin, to survive under the sun; very few people even lived in Northern climates). What do you wear when somebody dies, in the Mediterranean region? Black. What do you wear when you celebrate? White.
The symbolism is extremely obvious and pre-dating even the “discovery of America”.
The symbolism is extremely obvious and pre-dating even the “discovery of America”.
Eastern cultures had the opposite association of white with death but that is believed to ironically be a skin color association of the pallor of the deceased.
There are some discussions to be had about different symbolisms but treating it as a reductive to always good or bad well, calling it childish is an insult to children.
There are some discussions to be had about different symbolisms but treating it as a reductive to always good or bad well, calling it childish is an insult to children.
josteink(1)
Most likely, it comes from presence of light vs absence of light.
White is the color most representative of presence of light, while black is the color most representative of absence.
In many religions, light represents truth, while darkness represents absence of truth.
The good guys shine the light, bad guys cover it up.
No reference to race is required for this well known symbolism.
The old westerns were shot in black and white, so it was easy to have the white hats be the good guys and the black hats be the bad guys. Easy identification by the audience as to what was going on.
White is the color most representative of presence of light, while black is the color most representative of absence.
In many religions, light represents truth, while darkness represents absence of truth.
The good guys shine the light, bad guys cover it up.
No reference to race is required for this well known symbolism.
The old westerns were shot in black and white, so it was easy to have the white hats be the good guys and the black hats be the bad guys. Easy identification by the audience as to what was going on.
Style? Because they were in black and white originally?
Christianity perhaps?
Perhaps? Is that your go to boogeyman?
WTF? No, it just seems that they use white as symbol for purity and god - angels clad in white, brides in white dresses...
My sincere apologies for growing up in a Christian culture, making me an evil colonialist by birth. How can I make amends?
Boogeyman - we are talking about the colors black and white here. Get off your high horse!
My sincere apologies for growing up in a Christian culture, making me an evil colonialist by birth. How can I make amends?
Boogeyman - we are talking about the colors black and white here. Get off your high horse!
No,this is a universal concept. Night vs day, dark vs light. A strong light is associated with the color white, if you grew up in a Christian culture then you should know the Bible does speak a lot against judging people by appearances.
I am not on a high horse, but you picked a belief out of nowhere as if it was particularly significant to the topic, so boogeyman seemed an appropriate characterization.
I am not on a high horse, but you picked a belief out of nowhere as if it was particularly significant to the topic, so boogeyman seemed an appropriate characterization.
We were discussing good vs evil, though, not "strong light makes things white". Sure, there are probably some basic properties that make white a likely choice for purity - after all, you see dirt stains on white clothing much better than on dark clothing.
I don't know what you mean by "judging people by appearances", how is that relevant? I haven't read the bible, I personally ma not a Christian. I just grew up in Christian culture. And infosec presumably also predominantly developed in that culture, as it was dominating the Western world for wuite a while.
I don't think the bible says brides should be dressed in white, nevertheless it seems to be a common Christian tradition.
So no, it was not "picked out of nowhere", after all Christian religion was what has defined good and evil for hundreds of years now, in the world in which infosec developed.
I don't know what you mean by "judging people by appearances", how is that relevant? I haven't read the bible, I personally ma not a Christian. I just grew up in Christian culture. And infosec presumably also predominantly developed in that culture, as it was dominating the Western world for wuite a while.
I don't think the bible says brides should be dressed in white, nevertheless it seems to be a common Christian tradition.
So no, it was not "picked out of nowhere", after all Christian religion was what has defined good and evil for hundreds of years now, in the world in which infosec developed.
Infosec developed globally but even just in the west, it's hard to call Finland and Denmark for example having a Christian culture. Even in the US, it's less than 50/50 chance even in the 80s to find and an infosec person raised in a Christian household.
The color white as I am sure you know is not a color, it's what you see when all spectrums of visible light are observed. Similarly, black is the lack of reflected light. You're typically at increased danger when you lack visible light, that said human skin is never actual pure black. To an European person it is relatively much darker but with african societies you will hear lighter skinned peoppe called white. Treating people worse because their relative skin tone approximates lack of light more than your skin is not unique to west european culture.
We are talking about hats, old western hats. It was never a religious thing. Saying religion has something to do with it even when similar patterns of color preference are seen throught most cultures makes me think you have an adverse bias against religion affecting your opinion. But to your point, this bias is not uncommon within infosec or western tech in general. I criticized you simply because I find the ignorance and justification of blaming entire groups even for other people's biases without a modicum of factuality was something I felt was unfair and to be honest less than what I expect of well studied intellectuals such as the typical HN user. That said, apologies for coming of snarky and judgy.
The color white as I am sure you know is not a color, it's what you see when all spectrums of visible light are observed. Similarly, black is the lack of reflected light. You're typically at increased danger when you lack visible light, that said human skin is never actual pure black. To an European person it is relatively much darker but with african societies you will hear lighter skinned peoppe called white. Treating people worse because their relative skin tone approximates lack of light more than your skin is not unique to west european culture.
We are talking about hats, old western hats. It was never a religious thing. Saying religion has something to do with it even when similar patterns of color preference are seen throught most cultures makes me think you have an adverse bias against religion affecting your opinion. But to your point, this bias is not uncommon within infosec or western tech in general. I criticized you simply because I find the ignorance and justification of blaming entire groups even for other people's biases without a modicum of factuality was something I felt was unfair and to be honest less than what I expect of well studied intellectuals such as the typical HN user. That said, apologies for coming of snarky and judgy.
I thought it came from the six thinking hats
http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php#:~:text=The....
http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php#:~:text=The....
It is doing the opposite of what it appears to be doing here. Blackhat is incredibly prestigious, expensive, and largely corporate and government in attendance. If there really was some association to race (I do not think there is), this would be a positive example.
What I would like to see all these people do, who are doing find and replace in repos, is to show up to local city council meetings. They should find out what changes would be most impactful for minorities in their city and fight for those.
Changing 100 tech conference names will never negate the economic damage of them blocking housing development in the single family home neighborhoods that they live in around Mountain View.
What I would like to see all these people do, who are doing find and replace in repos, is to show up to local city council meetings. They should find out what changes would be most impactful for minorities in their city and fight for those.
Changing 100 tech conference names will never negate the economic damage of them blocking housing development in the single family home neighborhoods that they live in around Mountain View.
Instead of this cancel culture BS, maybe we dedicate more effort and outrage to real problems—-remember cancer, inequality, poverty, global warming, runaway national debt, defense issues, deforestation, plastic waste (and rain, apparently), clean water shortages, etc. Hey but let’s make sure we rename that default branch to main or remove specific keywords from code bases (none of which has anything to do with race). It’s fine. Those real problems can wait for some day.
It's clear that some of the language we use needed to be changed, the previously used terms for primary and secondary hard drives are an obvious example.
It seems to me that the notions related to black and white have broader cultural associations though. Light and dark or day and night have long been associated with good and bad. White similarly has associations with good and innocence hence the use for wedding dresses. I'm not convinced that we can easily rid ourselves of these deep rooted notions.
It seems to me that the notions related to black and white have broader cultural associations though. Light and dark or day and night have long been associated with good and bad. White similarly has associations with good and innocence hence the use for wedding dresses. I'm not convinced that we can easily rid ourselves of these deep rooted notions.
You're still giving the idea too much credit, I think. Black is just a color. The attitude that all black-colored things are intrinsically associated with black people is itself bizarre and problematic.
I agree with you. All colours have associations and there are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.
"Black" people aren't black. "White" people aren't white. Having white skin is a rare disease (albinism). So why did pink people invent the term "negro"/"black" to describe Africans? And why did the pink people call themselves "white"?
Btw yellow people are not really yellow either. And albinism is not "pure" white either.
That's exactly my thought. Why they should link a color to race?
When people see a man wearing pink, they think of them as being gay or effeminate. Men wearing pink might be assaulted because of this association.
Things are ultimately not 'just colors' because culture and society inform our reactions to color. That's one of the reasons why they want to avoid the connotations of black = evil because on some level that does tune our bias in a certain way.
Things are ultimately not 'just colors' because culture and society inform our reactions to color. That's one of the reasons why they want to avoid the connotations of black = evil because on some level that does tune our bias in a certain way.
I’m sorry, I really do want to try and understand, but I’m just completely lost on how to seriously engage with this argument.
Per my previous comment then, how about 'yellow peril'?
Color coding for racist elements has a long and storied history across the world. Nothing exists as simply just a color in many environments because the usage of color matters in context.
Color coding for racist elements has a long and storied history across the world. Nothing exists as simply just a color in many environments because the usage of color matters in context.
I may be misunderstanding the analogy, but I don't get it. "Yellow peril" was developed as an explicit reference to skin color, and I've never seen it used by people who didn't intend that reference. Conversely, I think we'd agree it's pretty silly if someone said that we must rename traffic signals to "gold lights" because "yellow light" isn't simply a color.
There is an issue with red as well(i.e see redskin rename debate) so perhaps we should use totally different colours (maybe some blue?)
> the previously used terms for primary and secondary hard drives are an obvious example.
You mean master and slave? Was that hard?
Don’t be afraid of words. Be afraid of those who wants to silence the words.
You mean master and slave? Was that hard?
Don’t be afraid of words. Be afraid of those who wants to silence the words.
I'm sorry, this is bonkers.
I have presented at more than one Blackhat conference and since then I have seen the hacker scene reduced to nothing but a farm team for surveillance companies, domestic spy agencies, and totalitarian movements in academia because they think merely being against-bad is sufficient to be good. Hacking was always about individual competence as a check on technological dominion and absolute political power. Today, it's something you do to get noticed by people who rent you out for dog and pony shows to sell surveillance technologies. Security is no longer about protecting innovation and enabling a perimeter for safe creativity and exploration, it is about inserting a governance layer over the competent and other technologists, to ensure their subordination to a layer of interchangeable compromised sycophants.
The movement to change these things has nothing to do with the content of "blackhat/whitehat." It is only about whether the people militating for the change have the power to cow others into submission. It is a test of whether the we will submit to the histrionic bullying by people in this movement. This is the same mechanism as the myth of Kim Jong Il hitting 11 consecutive holes in one, which was patently ridiculous, but designed to identify people who still have enough individual identity to recognize and resist the dominating absurdity of the movement behind it, who can't help but out themselves, so that they may be targeted by the movement for liquidation. What's worse, is people like this researcher aren't insane, they are calculated and cynical. This entire playbook is described by Hannah Arendt in her essay "Ideology and Terror," which was appended to her book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism."
If this makes me the first to stop clapping, so be it. The stakes are high enough that bearing the risk of being honest is a greater service to others than anything else I will likely achieve.
Good riddance.
I have presented at more than one Blackhat conference and since then I have seen the hacker scene reduced to nothing but a farm team for surveillance companies, domestic spy agencies, and totalitarian movements in academia because they think merely being against-bad is sufficient to be good. Hacking was always about individual competence as a check on technological dominion and absolute political power. Today, it's something you do to get noticed by people who rent you out for dog and pony shows to sell surveillance technologies. Security is no longer about protecting innovation and enabling a perimeter for safe creativity and exploration, it is about inserting a governance layer over the competent and other technologists, to ensure their subordination to a layer of interchangeable compromised sycophants.
The movement to change these things has nothing to do with the content of "blackhat/whitehat." It is only about whether the people militating for the change have the power to cow others into submission. It is a test of whether the we will submit to the histrionic bullying by people in this movement. This is the same mechanism as the myth of Kim Jong Il hitting 11 consecutive holes in one, which was patently ridiculous, but designed to identify people who still have enough individual identity to recognize and resist the dominating absurdity of the movement behind it, who can't help but out themselves, so that they may be targeted by the movement for liquidation. What's worse, is people like this researcher aren't insane, they are calculated and cynical. This entire playbook is described by Hannah Arendt in her essay "Ideology and Terror," which was appended to her book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism."
If this makes me the first to stop clapping, so be it. The stakes are high enough that bearing the risk of being honest is a greater service to others than anything else I will likely achieve.
Good riddance.
So humans are being humans.
It’s vanity to think we’re encountering some yet unknown human experience here.
It’s new to us individually, but the historical record is littered with exactly your account of “what’s happening.” Administrative state wraps itself around the rubes brainstems to moderate agency.
Obviously it’s fine when it comes to real harm to others. The problem is when a successful person believes that success for them is guaranteed. As much of mainstream America, it’s ridiculous billionaire class has come to believe.
We’ve given them a monopoly on capital, fools. Capital = options. We have none. We’re stupid and must simply enter into debt agreements to exist as a member of an elitists flock.
Or at least that’s the sound forms they might have used when the church owned everything.
Just because the central authority doesn’t “legally” own things doesn’t mean we haven’t ended up right back in the same spot of being controlled by a spiteful hierarchy of self-aggrandizing but otherwise normal men. Less literally violent spot, of course, but still destructive of innate biological rhythms.
People used to go about their day building shit. Now they need to coddle grandpas agreements. Pretty ironic for a country with a founding principle of “fuck gramps and his bullshit agreements.”
Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, the dead should not rule the living. But here we are being guilted into servicing their debts, their opinion on hierarchy, their old demands for wars over what really could have been mental illness back in the day. Somehow if it’s on paper it’s a force of reality, like gravity itself!
It’s vanity to think we’re encountering some yet unknown human experience here.
It’s new to us individually, but the historical record is littered with exactly your account of “what’s happening.” Administrative state wraps itself around the rubes brainstems to moderate agency.
Obviously it’s fine when it comes to real harm to others. The problem is when a successful person believes that success for them is guaranteed. As much of mainstream America, it’s ridiculous billionaire class has come to believe.
We’ve given them a monopoly on capital, fools. Capital = options. We have none. We’re stupid and must simply enter into debt agreements to exist as a member of an elitists flock.
Or at least that’s the sound forms they might have used when the church owned everything.
Just because the central authority doesn’t “legally” own things doesn’t mean we haven’t ended up right back in the same spot of being controlled by a spiteful hierarchy of self-aggrandizing but otherwise normal men. Less literally violent spot, of course, but still destructive of innate biological rhythms.
People used to go about their day building shit. Now they need to coddle grandpas agreements. Pretty ironic for a country with a founding principle of “fuck gramps and his bullshit agreements.”
Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, the dead should not rule the living. But here we are being guilted into servicing their debts, their opinion on hierarchy, their old demands for wars over what really could have been mental illness back in the day. Somehow if it’s on paper it’s a force of reality, like gravity itself!
Slow your horses. I happen to agree, and feel that this isn't the most impactful/helpful place to affect change.
But we all agree that symbols have meanings. Confederate emblems on state flags have meaning. The fact that you feel this case isn't worthwhile is fine, and you're entitled to your view and sharing it. But that doesn't magically change the concept of symbols into some plot of Kim Jong Il totalitarianistic mythology. You disagree with the changing of that symbol as an effective method for improving things. That's fine.
Instead of just the symbolic, are you just as fired up about addressing the structural issues of discrimination that people of color in your field experience? Is the extent of your ire just the terminology change? Because many people feel they don't have the luxury of that being the largest issues they are facing in tech. That's just one small pebble of many issues out there. Are you helping out in those efforts? Are you only willing to get upset about a name change but none of the other issues present in our field?
But we all agree that symbols have meanings. Confederate emblems on state flags have meaning. The fact that you feel this case isn't worthwhile is fine, and you're entitled to your view and sharing it. But that doesn't magically change the concept of symbols into some plot of Kim Jong Il totalitarianistic mythology. You disagree with the changing of that symbol as an effective method for improving things. That's fine.
Instead of just the symbolic, are you just as fired up about addressing the structural issues of discrimination that people of color in your field experience? Is the extent of your ire just the terminology change? Because many people feel they don't have the luxury of that being the largest issues they are facing in tech. That's just one small pebble of many issues out there. Are you helping out in those efforts? Are you only willing to get upset about a name change but none of the other issues present in our field?
I can't speak for the original commenter, but I'm fired up about this issue because of my fire for addressing structural issues in my field. Do you remember the controversy last year about the manager who said "I won't hire anyone who doesn't send a thank-you email"? Language policing is another manifestation of the same problem. It's a minor hurdle for those of us who follow the latest trends in upper-middle-class professional culture, and a huge structural barrier for anyone who can't or doesn't.
Slow this. It's not the changing of the symbol, it's the legitimacy and standing of the people who wish to change it, the means they are using to do so, and the sincerity of their motives.
This is the forum we have. I reject the standing of the critical theory underlying the problematizing of what it perceives as symbols in my field, because the ideology itself is designed to manufacture and inject conflict, as means to leverage itself into being an arbiter of purity, and its endgame has a lot of historical precedents. Dialectical materialism is an intellectual cancer.
This is where change happens. It's in the culture, and we respond in the culture. This forum is public discourse. If you are concerned because it sounds "angry," I would recommend revisiting how that reflects as a style of argument.
While this probably isn't the forum to re-litigate it, it is the forum to state unambiguously that the effort to hijack, co-opt, and subordinate Blackhat and the community it served to an ideology using an implied threat of political cancellation ( or "atomization" in the literature) has not gone unnoticed.
This is where change happens. It's in the culture, and we respond in the culture. This forum is public discourse. If you are concerned because it sounds "angry," I would recommend revisiting how that reflects as a style of argument.
While this probably isn't the forum to re-litigate it, it is the forum to state unambiguously that the effort to hijack, co-opt, and subordinate Blackhat and the community it served to an ideology using an implied threat of political cancellation ( or "atomization" in the literature) has not gone unnoticed.
"> Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher[1], VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Google Play Store, withdrew from a scheduled talk he was set to give in August at the Black Hat USA 2020 security conference."
it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this. With entitled I mean, finished university working at a top position in a large company on a 6 figure salary. It's never the worker POC who is slaving away in an Amazon warehouse or working 3 jobs in the gig economy to feed their family. It's just a cheap way to get your name in the news and to me (personally) these people are very misguided. They're well read no doubt but nevertheless wrong. Guess it's easier as an exec at a multinational company to pander to this rather than tackling their transfer-pricing crimes they commit with their Double Irish / Dutch Sandwiches[2].
Banning language like this is a very dangerous path:
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” -- George Orwell "1984"
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this. With entitled I mean, finished university working at a top position in a large company on a 6 figure salary. It's never the worker POC who is slaving away in an Amazon warehouse or working 3 jobs in the gig economy to feed their family. It's just a cheap way to get your name in the news and to me (personally) these people are very misguided. They're well read no doubt but nevertheless wrong. Guess it's easier as an exec at a multinational company to pander to this rather than tackling their transfer-pricing crimes they commit with their Double Irish / Dutch Sandwiches[2].
Banning language like this is a very dangerous path:
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” -- George Orwell "1984"
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
Whether the term "black hat" perpetuates racial prejudices or not (I'm unconvinced), I think this kind of comment has the potential to take the whole thread down the wrong path. It asserts (without evidence) that no working-class Black people care about this¹, then argues that the author is "no doubt nevertheless wrong", and then quotes a work of fiction without any explanation of why the analogy is apt. Why is it that every time there's a discussion about language like this people try to shut it down with hyperbolic comparisons to totalitarianism rather than actually engaging? We can have these kinds of discussions while also pushing companies to put their money where their mouth is.
¹ Could it be instead that when working-class Black people complain about this they don't get national press?
¹ Could it be instead that when working-class Black people complain about this they don't get national press?
People make hyperbolic comparisons because the previous hyperbolic comparisons keep coming true. A decade or two ago, "activists want us to examine all black-colored things to make sure they're not racist" was a ridiculous hyperbolic claim.
As far as I can tell, that's a bad-faith misrepresentation of the position. The position is more like "we've got lots of expressions that associate `black` with `bad`, and maybe we should move away from them in a professional context." The claim isn't that the origin of these terms itself is necessarily racist (e.g. a black sheep is a sheep whose wool can't be dyed), only that their use helps to an unconscious climate of anti-blackness. Again, I'm not really convinced that this is true, but it's not the same as saying we should examine every "black-colored thing" to make sure it's not racist.
And crucially, I'm not irrationally upset over the mere suggestion that we should rethink certain language, and someone withdrawing from a conference doesn't immediately make me think of a fictional evil regime that tortures people for reading a book or saying the wrong thing.
And crucially, I'm not irrationally upset over the mere suggestion that we should rethink certain language, and someone withdrawing from a conference doesn't immediately make me think of a fictional evil regime that tortures people for reading a book or saying the wrong thing.
It isn't irrational to be upset at masses of people being stupid. It is quite rational given the sheer history of damage they have caused.
Calling it "rethink" is a euphemism that damages the truth. It is rethinking in the same sense that a true king doesn't have to say he is king as power, deeds, and masses of followers make it abundantly obvious. In this case it is clearly a demand. Actual thinking would involve enough introspection to ask "isn't avoiding black in phrases like the plague in itself suggesting that black is bad far more than any tangental occurance?".
A proper rethinking would be demonstrative instead of imperative - for the previous only demonstrates what they shouldn't do instead of demonstrating what they should do. Coin a new set of phrases for the roles and explain why they are preferrable to the faded zeitgeist. But that would require creation instead of more destructive social bullshit slinging.
Calling it "rethink" is a euphemism that damages the truth. It is rethinking in the same sense that a true king doesn't have to say he is king as power, deeds, and masses of followers make it abundantly obvious. In this case it is clearly a demand. Actual thinking would involve enough introspection to ask "isn't avoiding black in phrases like the plague in itself suggesting that black is bad far more than any tangental occurance?".
A proper rethinking would be demonstrative instead of imperative - for the previous only demonstrates what they shouldn't do instead of demonstrating what they should do. Coin a new set of phrases for the roles and explain why they are preferrable to the faded zeitgeist. But that would require creation instead of more destructive social bullshit slinging.
Can you go into more detail? I'm not sure I see how it isn't the same. If we think any use of the word "black" to describe something negative causes "an unconscious climate of anti-blackness", it seems like that implies a commitment to examine every black-colored thing.
I think "thing" is too broad a term, the focus is specifically on a small set of negative expressions. For example, if I walk down the street and see a black mailbox or a black manhole cover, I don't see anyone arguing that those things might be racist.
That's why you should never joke around "social justice warriors" - you don't want to give them any ideas.
You got it precisely backwards. using "black" to mean both "African" and "evil", instead of using a separate word for the idea of evil, is a perfect example of Newspeak.
The design of Newspeak is to force unintended meanings into words. Please get a copy of 1984 and read the appendix on Newspeak.
The design of Newspeak is to force unintended meanings into words. Please get a copy of 1984 and read the appendix on Newspeak.
I think you need to check the etymology of 'black' in relation to skin colour. It dates to about the early 1600s derived from the term 'blackamoor' which is still used as an art term for figurines depicting African people in subservient postures.
Using the term 'black' in relation to people is therefore connected to the slave trade and I'd recommend that you cease using it instead of overloading it in that context.
Using the term 'black' in relation to people is therefore connected to the slave trade and I'd recommend that you cease using it instead of overloading it in that context.
I'm white so I can only postulate from other experiences where I can actually relate.
I think the question of "black hat" may in fact be offensive is valid criticism of our culture using "black" to be on the opposite side of a spectrum compared to white; where humans think the white side is possibly noble while the black side deserves some form of contempt.
I think it's a red herring to think about other combinations of words having "black" before the following word and where no negative feeling exists from it. Example: black swan
Should people care? IDK
I think the question of "black hat" may in fact be offensive is valid criticism of our culture using "black" to be on the opposite side of a spectrum compared to white; where humans think the white side is possibly noble while the black side deserves some form of contempt.
I think it's a red herring to think about other combinations of words having "black" before the following word and where no negative feeling exists from it. Example: black swan
Should people care? IDK
My herring is deeply offended.
If someone sees the phrase "Black Hat" and immediately thinks of negative stereotypes about black people, I really feel like they're the one with unconscious bias that needs to be broken down.
Does this sudden upswell in irrelevant language policing not seem like some kind of coordinated op to discredit BLM? I don’t question that real people fall for it, but considering how wildly successful it’s been at distracting from material demands, like ending police violence, and how much the media has embraced these stories while ignoring ongoing protests, has me a little tinfoily...
I think it's an inevitable consequence of the well-intentioned demands that everyone should take action. If you're a conscientious big company VP, with a strong belief that you should take action but no actual power to reform the police, doing something performative but splashy is the obvious choice.
I'm looking at things from across the pond and then some, but I think it's some kind of a reaction -> counter-reaction -> counter-counter-reaction thing.
I don't think it's meant to discredit BLM although it might end up doing that.
<div class="wall-of-text">
Some people genuinely feel outsiders in a field, or might not see it as a real possibility because it feels foreign. Some parts of language and culture might actually maintain that, although (generally speaking) not due to malice by other people. Other parts just are, and don't actually do much of anything.
Some people then want to change that feeling of outsideness, some more than others. Some of the people who personally feel the most strongly about it are the people coming from the backgrounds that aren't traditionally associated with tech. They're often also from ethnic minorities, or women.
Some of those people feel extremely strongly about it.
It gets tied to their other experiences with being at a disadvantage, or of blatant racism.
Others (partially rightly) then want to support it. But some of those people who have experienced disadvantage are really, really angry, and want to attack everything that reminds them of the injustice they've experienced. And because some honestly unrelated things become mentally tied to that, they also become microaggressions, or something. (Microaggressions are probably a real thing, but if you start wanting to catch all of them, you'll also end up catching a lot of false positives. Specificity and sensitivity and all that.)
Then there are people who actually either feel subconsciously threatened by others competing for the same positions, status and authority, or who are actually racists and feel other ethnic groups shouldn't get the same things they have. Those two groups of people aren't the same, although they probably intertwine. And it's actually quite human to feel the former in various degrees. Maybe even the latter, considering how common it is in the world, but it's easier to see that as nefarious.
And then there are people who just don't like unnecessary change. And those who just don't like the feeling of someone else pushing a way of speaking, thinking or acting on them without really good reason. (I think a lot of HN readers fall into that latter category, as do many classical liberals. I certainly do.)
A lot of people just fall into one social group and context out of the above, because humans are herd animals and having a group is massively important to the vast majority of us.
All of that somehow leads to an unholy mess. Actual racists want to push their agenda and attack those whom they see as their political enemies; opposing any agenda that purports to be antiracist seems to play into the hands of racists; some people get caught in the middle because they don't want to support the racists but also don't like the idea that the language they're used to using needs to change, especially if it doesn't seem like a big thing; some of those not-a-big-things appear to be big things to other people, but who can tell who's really right; others get caught in the middle because they're a bit insecure of their own position and are thus disincentivized of advancing other people's positions, yet don't want to associate with the blatant racists either.
Some get caught in the middle because they want things to make sense to them, and "we all need to get behind this because someone somewhere has the emotional need for that" doesn't cut it. Because there are 7 billion emotional needs, and that's if you only count humans.
So the requirement of hypersensitivity (and even blatantly creating problems) makes many people who aren't even racist uncomfortable; the actual racists use this to their advantage, and overreaction by antiracists provides ample attack surface; and in the eyes of those who feel very strongly about antiracism opposing any of their views (including about microaggressions) become something to oppose. Meanwhile, some of the people in the middle actually have mildly racist views, or feel threatened, or just want to maintain more of a status quo because they're, by personality, somewhat conservative people who don't like rapid change. Or they dislike being pushed into something, or out of something (such as use of language). But because some of the people in the middle are actually supportive of mild racism, or uncomfortable of facing the reality of it, attacking the middle also becomes a valid argument.
And because people don't like feeling like being attacked, some of the people in that middle then gravitate towards the right-wing end. Because the racists aren't attacking them; it seems like the strong antiracists are.
You then end up with two polar opposites that reinforce themselves, and each other. And with some people caught in the middle who, for better or for worse reasons, don't really want to side with either.
</div>
Sorry if I got carried away. But I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
I honestly don't think the people pushing for language policing in a hypersensitive manner are trying to discredit BLM, and I'm not really sure most of them are necessarily "virtue-signaling" either. Some of them are, but most of them are probably just reacting to something that they either personally find offensive (even though their actual enemy is the real racists, not (most of) those in the middle) or to something their in-group opposes.
It's just a complex social dynamic, not a conspiracy.
I don't think it's meant to discredit BLM although it might end up doing that.
<div class="wall-of-text">
Some people genuinely feel outsiders in a field, or might not see it as a real possibility because it feels foreign. Some parts of language and culture might actually maintain that, although (generally speaking) not due to malice by other people. Other parts just are, and don't actually do much of anything.
Some people then want to change that feeling of outsideness, some more than others. Some of the people who personally feel the most strongly about it are the people coming from the backgrounds that aren't traditionally associated with tech. They're often also from ethnic minorities, or women.
Some of those people feel extremely strongly about it.
It gets tied to their other experiences with being at a disadvantage, or of blatant racism.
Others (partially rightly) then want to support it. But some of those people who have experienced disadvantage are really, really angry, and want to attack everything that reminds them of the injustice they've experienced. And because some honestly unrelated things become mentally tied to that, they also become microaggressions, or something. (Microaggressions are probably a real thing, but if you start wanting to catch all of them, you'll also end up catching a lot of false positives. Specificity and sensitivity and all that.)
Then there are people who actually either feel subconsciously threatened by others competing for the same positions, status and authority, or who are actually racists and feel other ethnic groups shouldn't get the same things they have. Those two groups of people aren't the same, although they probably intertwine. And it's actually quite human to feel the former in various degrees. Maybe even the latter, considering how common it is in the world, but it's easier to see that as nefarious.
And then there are people who just don't like unnecessary change. And those who just don't like the feeling of someone else pushing a way of speaking, thinking or acting on them without really good reason. (I think a lot of HN readers fall into that latter category, as do many classical liberals. I certainly do.)
A lot of people just fall into one social group and context out of the above, because humans are herd animals and having a group is massively important to the vast majority of us.
All of that somehow leads to an unholy mess. Actual racists want to push their agenda and attack those whom they see as their political enemies; opposing any agenda that purports to be antiracist seems to play into the hands of racists; some people get caught in the middle because they don't want to support the racists but also don't like the idea that the language they're used to using needs to change, especially if it doesn't seem like a big thing; some of those not-a-big-things appear to be big things to other people, but who can tell who's really right; others get caught in the middle because they're a bit insecure of their own position and are thus disincentivized of advancing other people's positions, yet don't want to associate with the blatant racists either.
Some get caught in the middle because they want things to make sense to them, and "we all need to get behind this because someone somewhere has the emotional need for that" doesn't cut it. Because there are 7 billion emotional needs, and that's if you only count humans.
So the requirement of hypersensitivity (and even blatantly creating problems) makes many people who aren't even racist uncomfortable; the actual racists use this to their advantage, and overreaction by antiracists provides ample attack surface; and in the eyes of those who feel very strongly about antiracism opposing any of their views (including about microaggressions) become something to oppose. Meanwhile, some of the people in the middle actually have mildly racist views, or feel threatened, or just want to maintain more of a status quo because they're, by personality, somewhat conservative people who don't like rapid change. Or they dislike being pushed into something, or out of something (such as use of language). But because some of the people in the middle are actually supportive of mild racism, or uncomfortable of facing the reality of it, attacking the middle also becomes a valid argument.
And because people don't like feeling like being attacked, some of the people in that middle then gravitate towards the right-wing end. Because the racists aren't attacking them; it seems like the strong antiracists are.
You then end up with two polar opposites that reinforce themselves, and each other. And with some people caught in the middle who, for better or for worse reasons, don't really want to side with either.
</div>
Sorry if I got carried away. But I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
I honestly don't think the people pushing for language policing in a hypersensitive manner are trying to discredit BLM, and I'm not really sure most of them are necessarily "virtue-signaling" either. Some of them are, but most of them are probably just reacting to something that they either personally find offensive (even though their actual enemy is the real racists, not (most of) those in the middle) or to something their in-group opposes.
It's just a complex social dynamic, not a conspiracy.
Hey, please don't engage in hate speech against tin foil.
The only thing offensive about this is the way white people are hijacking the narrative and making the actual point of what peope of color are actually asking for get lost in bullshit.
The inanity is best summed up in an image macro: https://imgur.com/gallery/QR1UXz1
These Red Guards 2.0 seriously need to chill out.
No, it isn’t.
The submitted title was "Is the title of the Black Hat conf offensive? Google sec. researcher withdraws", which broke the HN guidelines.
Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
MintelIE(2)
I'm not sure what the problem is.
I've refactored methods and functions all the time to try and improve clarity. Removing words, changing meaning so that people who read it grok it.
I don't have a problem with changing terms. But people take a hard-line ideological stance against it because they perceive change as being weak or a slippery slope or something.
I've refactored methods and functions all the time to try and improve clarity. Removing words, changing meaning so that people who read it grok it.
I don't have a problem with changing terms. But people take a hard-line ideological stance against it because they perceive change as being weak or a slippery slope or something.
It is because of the actor really. Conceptually their strategy is "if they give an inch take a mile and keep on taking" while using every bit to beat them with it over every little petty issue. The way to shut them down is to tell them to take a hike from the start to deny any leverage. Reconsider if they have anything worthy of consideration.
Part of effecfive communication is not looking like a bad actor with an approach.
Part of effecfive communication is not looking like a bad actor with an approach.
Also not offensive: Black Friday, black holes, black beans, black tea, black-eyed peas, black gold (aka oil), Black Mirror, black swans.