In my view, it is the demand for viral anger inducing content that is unlimited. That, of course, can include content that relates to racism, but the power of social media doesn't depend on the specific category of anger; rather, it thrives on virtually all anger. There are many examples of viral hoaxes that are not specifically about race, though topics related to race certainly do play well into the anger spiral of most social media.
I would say that such hoaxes, in general, only work to add confusion to our perceptions of the real harms of racism in our society. Do not attempt to find any clarity based on these hoaxes. We shouldn't draw conclusions about how much racism there is, based on internet viral fud. To do so is to allow the deception to misdirect us away from the reality of the situation. Whatever that reality is, it's not reflected by this type of thing. Rather, this type of situation reflects the more general anger spiral that social media thrives on.
These "hate hoaxes" are quite common. A few of the more prominent examples from recent years include Jussie Smollett, the Rolling Stone rape story, Yasmin Seweid, and Covington Catholic. Come to think of it, it seems like most of the major stories about some racist or sexist incident turn out to be false.
It's not surprising that people do this, given how much value modern society places on "victimhood" and being a member of some oppressed group. What's more worrying is the tendency of the media and society to accept these accusations uncritically and jump on the bandwagon to condemn the alleged wrongdoer.
Conveniently for itself, BYU decided that the chants were not racist. Specifically, their entire justification for this finding that the fan in question did not say anything while the targeted athlete was serving the ball. But enough white Duke coaches and athletes also heard the racist remarks during the game that the university was able to identify the fan so that they could ask BYU to ban the fan.
But apparently the anti-BYU chants this past weekend were super offensive. Hypocrites.
The footage is out there, you can review it yourself, no racial epithets were yelled. The mens basketball team was there, with a good number of black people; not a single heard anything. The entire crowd would need to be complicit, along with the refs and the coach.
It seems very clearly, at best, the person misheard, although more likely made up.
Was this reported on The Root? I searched their site but didn't find what you describe.
They did report on the BYU investigation and seemed to disagree. [1] But they don't mention having reviewed the footage. Nor do they provide any other evidence.
> their entire justification for this finding that the fan in question did not say anything while the targeted athlete was serving the ball.
Wasn't the claim that someone yelled the n-word every time the girl served the ball?
Didn't BYU interview 50 students and fans, and not find a single one who could corroborate? And they pored over all of the recorded footage of the televised game and found nothing?
Seems unlikely that NPR would be carrying water for BYU if Duke had the goods. [1]
The athlete, and her teammates, and her coaches, said that the fan was making racist comments the entire game.
NPR merely reported BYU's findings. Apparently it's not politically correct to call out Mormons on their homophobia or racism, so the Duke team's experience was left out of the NPR coverage.
NPR does not credulously report on such matters. Duke's claims were thoroughly covered in the original NPR story. So obviously NPR does report on racist behavior at BYU, when it appears to be true.
Have Duke's claims been put into a report anywhere? It sounds like you accept claims of racism over a report based on actual evidence and dozens of interviews. Even when that report is widely reported in media that has egg on its face for having jumped the gun.
Can you point to Duke's evidence, or share what more could be shown by BYU/NPR/NBC to change your mind?
Don't forget this gem, which was roundly blamed on MAGA voters:
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli-American teenager was found guilty in Israel on Thursday of making about 2,000 hoax bomb threats against Jewish and other institutions in the United States and elsewhere during Donald Trump’s rise to the U.S. presidency in 2016 and 2017.
this site shows 18 "hoax" listings during the year 2020. There were over 8000 hate crimes reported that year according to the FBI.
btw, the site you linked seems to be an anonymous website with no indication of provenance or purpose ... unsolicited advice but I would caution against such material. You might find this information helpful: https://www.uow.edu.au/student/learning-co-op/finding-and-us...
Taking your example I am most familiar with, I haven't heard any evidence whatsoever to indicate that George Floyd's murder was racially motivated. Killer cops gonna kill. Not every murder of a minority is racism.
The reaction to Floyd's death says more about people's ideological and emotional priors than it does about the actual events that took place on that day in May 2020.
technically, a video of someone kneeling on a man's neck for 9 minutes, while the man says "I can't breathe", then loses consciousness, then dies, is "evidence" per se, even if you don't personally find it dispositive. So I think when you say "no evidence", you are exaggerating to fit a certain narrative.
Exactly. When these sorts of acts are committed by non-whites, they disappear quickly from the news cycle and the race of the perpetrator is not mentioned or not emphasized. Anyone even remember the name of the black man with a history of racist posts that killed 6 and injured 62 during the Waukesha Christmas parade last year? Didn't think so
Anybody remember if that black man was a participant in a community of racists? Didn't think so. There's a difference in policy between handling a lone nutcase and racist groups.
I’m reminded of the comparison to the dragon-slaying knight, finding himself with fewer and fewer dragons to slay, resorts to slaying increasingly small animals and, once nobody is impressed by that anymore, builds dragon effigies of straw.
There are a few racists and I guess the positive side is that people can also learn from negative examples. The daily stormer was banned. I think it perfectly depicted racists at their lowest point and I doubt they could have impressed many people.
Getting rid of all racism is as futile as getting rid of all stupidity. I think them being in the public so people can actually watch what they are doing and discussing is pretty reassuring. Because it often is very clear that it doesn't amount to much.
I'm glad I don't have a reddit or twitter accounts anymore, you see this kinda stuff all the time and I'm convinced 99% of it is made up by people dreaming up weird fantasies for fake internet points.
My interest in reddit faded when someone posted a link to 4chan and, and I looked at it pretty disgusted at who would make a site dedicated to obviously fake, often offensive garbage.
Then I saw their disclaimer, "The stories and information here are artistic work of fiction and falsehood. only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It seems like a dumb way to come to this realization but after turning this statement over in my head for a few weeks, it dawned on me that all the quirky stories I've been reading on reddit for years, even the believable ones, are fake. Part of this realization was actually posting a number of fake stories and getting some very highly upvoted comments.
That many people, journalists especially, seem to read twitter content with a default-true instead of a defaul-false assumption is scary to me.
When analyzing stories like this, I like to ask myself, what if the result were reversed? Would it be reported?
For instance, if there is a study that says [group 1] are actually better managers than [group 2]. I ask myself what if the study found [group 2] is in fact better than [group 1]? It very well may be that [group 1] is in fact better managers, but if the reverse cannot be reported, then you're not getting any counterfactual evidence since it would be suppressed, ignored or manipulated. Basically it doesn't fit the popular narrative.
You can apply this to other statements. If you hear a statement in which the reverse would be inconceivable, it's probably not a meaningful statement. If you hear a manager say "I stand with my employees", would the reverse make sense? Is there someone that would argue, no, I don't stand with my employees? If not, then that statement is a meaningless platitude and not conveying any information. The only caveat I would add is that the subject may add focus. Focusing on employees may be a signal to some value that is not universally shared, but people often hedge their bets and say something like "I stand with my employees, customers and stockholders", which is completely meaningless.
> I like to ask myself, what if the result were reversed? Would it be reported?
Ask and you will be answered:
The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not.
That’s a very clever way to look at things. So much of social media is littered with platitudes and virtue signalling where the thing being said is not only very low risk but not saying it would be career suicide (or at least cause endless foaming at the mouth), this is a useful way to filter out low effort content.
What's worse is the 'mostly false/true' stories and bit of info out there. Things like the French Mother Sauces, the exact time when you have three watches, what the Somme Offensive was like, etc. You think you have a good idea, you mostly do, but then you have just enough to move on and not know anything at all really. It's like the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, but for everything.
“Isms” etc are easy to throw out without providing actual proof. Racism, sexism, phobic, etc. it’s an easy slur to use as a defense mechanism, and is rarely challenged.
The interesting thing is how words like ‘racist’ start to lose meaning so they simply start doubling down and using words like ‘fascist’ and ‘genocide’, then legitimately evil things that actually fit those words are easier to hide since they are just one of thousands being called those words daily.
The difficulty people face today is how hard it is to pierce the veil of the multiple layers of deceit.
At one point, even gently suggesting that all was not as it seemed with the Covid numbers (remember when it was reported to have a 10% mortality rate in Italy?) would get you banned/blacklisted/downvoted etc...
Even today, pointing out the risk/reward issues with child vaccination for Covid will get a mob attacking you, and anti-vaxxer etc... labels applied.
Whether it's racism, covid, gun control, abortion or any other politically charged "wedge" issue, it's nearly impossible to get to a reasonable discussion of the issue. Neither "side" wants that. They want demonization, othering and disgust reaction in order to gain and consolidate power.
Partisan media organizations outright lie, and face basically no accountability for it.
In order to try to hunt down some semblance of truth, you have to constantly read opposing publications, and it's a lot of work.
I prefer to read media that doesn't pretend to hide their bias, Huffington Post, Breitbart, The Atlantic, etc... Over the claimed "impartial" media like NYT, Fox, MSNBC that pretend at objective journalism but have a clear political agenda.
This is a follow-up to a thread that was discussed here on HN yesterday. I figured it would be interesting to see what someone trying to dig deeper into the details discovered.
The existing thread was flagged so no one would be able to see it. And even if they could, it's long since fallen off the front page. The best way to try to undo some of the harm caused by yesterday's false story is to give the follow-up/correction at least equal if not greater prominence.
You have the option of emailing the site admins (footer Contact link) and asking them to do this.
But: They’re more likely to pin a link to this post at the top of the comments of yesterday’s post, based on how they’ve handled other situations like this.
No, this link needs to be front centre with the existing thread linked back here - as it has been done. The existing thread is about a claim of racism which is clearly proven to be fake in the message originating this thread.
It's always a hard question. If you didn't see the story in the first place this thread doesn't do much except feed confirmation bias about the typical veracity of shocking social media stories. But what fraction of the people who did see the story are going to go back and read a random comment on it the next day?
I had my doubts too about the story esp the part where he claimed to have had sent 100 applications for open postdoc positions in a very niche area of research; namely "Plant Biology", which raised my suspicions, and that's why I was instead more interested in the conversation around the topic itself, and I must say that I was a bit disappointed with a few responses that I came across in that thread; where a few people argued that it was OK to discriminate against people of different cultural backgrounds, and they made grand assumptions about those people's religiosity based solely on their birth name, and cited potential conflicts in the workplace arising from that specific consideration, which needless to say is a very absurd notion altogether.
Even though most of these opinions weren't favorable with the general audience citing the downvotes, one in particular caught my attention where a denouncement of cultural favoritism in the hiring process where applicants from specific backgrounds were given priority while others esp of Muslim background were treated with suspicions and animosity, seemed to sit well with a given segment of the audience here, which is a testament to the pervasive nature of bias, discrimination, bigotry and intolerance that some people still hold in the workplace toward other minorities, and that we still have a lot of work to do in that area to ensure equality, inclusion, diversity and overall progress for all of us in our professional life.
It does appear that the original tweet thread may be a fabrication, but the author here may be giving themselves too much credit for having the thread disappear.
Seems like many people were asking hard questions.
Author here. Many were! I noticed nothing original, and my direct question was only part of the picture. It was striking to me how quickly he started making things disappear after I asked, though, and so far as I can tell the timing is consistent specifically with that question being the immediate precipitating factor.
His name is public and visible on the archive page etc, but he is not prominent and at least deleted the thread rather than letting it continue to spread. I’d rather not unilaterally make this the defining moment in his public life long-term, so I’m keeping the name out of a Google-able permanent article.
He’s real enough to have appeared as the first author on a couple of apolitical peer-reviewed publications in his field. I don’t know what possessed him to do this but he definitely looks to be real.
Just as there are copycat criminals there are copycat forgeries and scams. The irony is that if this was just a "hey, check this out" stunt that had no basis in reality then it doesn't help solve the real biases and racist issues that remain but only serves to reinforce the biases of some that this is a non-existent issue. For the sake of those who really do suffer from prejudice I hope the author of this apparent scam is made to apologize.
Most everything on the internet is a falsehood prepped up and bolstered for clout. Even much of the stuff you see here bragging about starting a SaaS or whatever, for clicks and likes. Instagram pictures are faked. The happiness, is faked. Much of the conversation on Twitter is astroturfed and botted to such an extent to farm likes and narratives. What's disturbing is all the fake is spilling right out into real life nowadays. Influencers walking around filming everywhere and fully believing they're celebrities in their own right, and with a matching entirely different off camera/off public view personality to boot.
We have William Gibson novels nearly coming to life a few decades later. Celebrity and influencer obsession and the itch and the need for that dopamine hit to go viral. It's a disease.
This has been documented well in the German job market with very solid reasearch backing it.
with that being said sensationalism and victim complex is a thing in Muslim / arab culture (I come from one), so finding made up stories about racism is possible
That works both ways, I know of Indian developers who only hire other indians, or east Asians who stick together. In Canada it’s a normal thing, Toronto is a big city divided into a ton of ethnic neighbourhoods (there’s a little x for every mini culture or ethnicity).
This has a side effect of ethnic groups sticking together at work, where language, culture, religion, etc are similar.
And it also doesn’t mean economic exclusion either. In places like Brampton the highest income bracket by religion is Hindu #1, then Jews, atheists, and Christians.
Meh, Toronto is a vibrant multi-cultural place where everyone is accepted, we don't many race-obsessed issues like the US. Not sure where you're getting 'ghettoization' and 'xenophobia' from this.
Yes that should also be addressed and fixed, in Germany for example in many cities there is a requirement for housing of all income levels in the same neighborhood, which leads to the ability for new comers (can be with low income) to mix and live in the same neighborhood.
In France and Sweden it wasn't the case, most non Europeans were living in suburbs and out of sight, this lead to integration issue down the road as we see currently in both countries.
Finally, Indian favoritism / discrimination in IT jobs in north America is a very specific topic that should be addressed, but it's not as large as institutionalized white racism that is much broader and well studied and affect more sectors in life including governmental services.
Being that academia heavily leans more liberal (in western countries at least) how such a story could explode even if it was fake because of audience bias to "confirming what they already knew" even if they didn't really know it. It didn't pass the smell test with me though, as in my experience the bias was much more subtle and less bias at the lower end (post docs, papers, collaborations) and more bias on the upper end "glass ceiling" (full professorships, flagship universities, academic governing bodies)
I'm not really sure what you mean, by the "Asian elephant in the room" -- but the article you linked to has some useful links. You could, for example, read the brief submitted to the supreme court.
Here's what the article quoted:
> In the Harvard brief, the academics argued that SFFA’s case is grounded in racist stereotypes, citing the petitioner’s own assertion that Asian Americans are academically “substantially stronger” than other demographic groups and therefore “should be admitted at a higher rate.”
> “That assertion fundamentally rests on a racial stereotype about Asian Americans as a so-called ‘model minority,’” the brief reads. “That stereotype advances the views that (1) Asian Americans are smarter and value education more than other groups and (2) other racial minorities do not value hard work and education.”
> The Harvard brief also states that the dissolution of race-conscious admissions would harm Asian Americans and ignore the diversity of experiences and degrees of power and privilege within the group.
> “Research shows that advocating such views creates groundless fears of racial discrimination in college admissions that … inhibits identity development among Asian American students,” the brief reads.
> “Research shows that advocating such views creates groundless fears of racial discrimination in college admissions [...]
Is this just saying that observing that colleges are discriminating against Asians (by rejecting their applications at a higher rate, such that less-objectively-qualified applicants of other races are accepted in their stead) makes people feel that Asians are being discriminated against? Because of course discriminating against someone makes it seem like there is discrimination afoot.
If I recall correctly, the "California Civil Rights Amendment" (aka: Prop 16) from 2000 would have ended affirmative action in the State of California. I seem to recall that much of the support for this amendment was from the Asian community who were upset that they maxed out their quotas in the UC system every year and those being denied acceptance would have been statistically in the top 5% of applicants in any other quota category.
Even in states that have forbidden race-based affirmative action, schools have found simple proxies such as zip codes and various outreach programs to circumvent such bans.
I am not sure why this is an elephant at all? Right now schools can use just about any criteria they want. Why would they cede the control of the process at all?
> I am not sure why this is an elephant at all? Right now schools can use just about any criteria they wants. Why would it cede the control of the process at all?
Cause it's racist thus immoral. Some american universities used to do that for jews. It's was bad back then it's still bad now.
"race-conscious admission", what a sweet euphemism for racial discrimination in academia. Just call it something that sounds positive, the hell with our principles.
It's also blatantly in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and in violation of the 14th Amendment for any state schools. But that hasn't stopped the courts and educational institutions from being explicitly and overtly racist via affirmative action.
Alumni preference is racist at lots of schools, since they were segregated in living memory and the chain of alumni admitted with special preference can't go back to a person of excluded race before the desegregation of the school.
I am not arguing race. I am asking why from sheer 'ability to steer process in direction I want' would an institution not fight against any changes to the status quo just when they figured out a sweet spot for themselves? I guess what I am saying that it explains a lot behind the link provided.
Well this thread is about about "racism in academia". This is the elephant in the room. Racist policies in college admissions. You're trying to argue that it's somehow off topic when it's blatant and the so called anti-racist activists defend racism when it's targeted at groups they don't care about.
Hmm. Interesting point. Can you define racism for me as it relates to "Racist policies in college admissions."? I am trying to determine if you are looking at disparate impact or something else ( and if so, what that something else is ).
I don't really disagree with you, but I am trying to understand your perspective.
<< You're trying to argue that it's somehow off topic
Not at all. I am sure racism part will be covered in detail, while I go after less obvious, but likely more accurate 'people maintaining status quo, because it benefits them'.
And plenty of people on HN (and elsewhere) swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker. If you look at the thread on HN from yesterday you'll see plenty of people buying the story unquestionably (though fortunately there were a decent number of people expressing doubt). The problem is that stories like these gain traction and reinforce false narratives about the nature of racial discrimination and other issues.
A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
Trolling on Twitter is most effective when there's some truth behind it.
The "names impact hiring" thing is pretty well established, factually, so it's not surprising that folks would believe a tweet thread that seems to align with established fact.
Ultimately, it's normal to believe what people tell you when there's no obvious reason for doubt. If my coworker says they're late because they got stuck behind an accident, I'm not gonna demand photos and a police report. So to people who haven't acquired a high degree Internet literacy, saying "don't believe what you read" sounds like some kind of trick.
I remember a passionate argument I had about some unsourced story of poor Stripe customer support. The other guy was genuinely baffled why I would question the poor merchant who was being so cruelly mistreated.
The interesting thing about this story is that the details are so unlikely that there are "obvious reasons for doubt"; from a 17% mostly negative reply rate to a 87% mostly positive reply reply rate on name only is a huge difference and very unsubtle.
I think it should be obvious that this person never actually ran the experiment, and merely reported what they expected the difference to be.
"It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it could have been true" is a particular kind of reasoning I've seen a few times over the years, from different ideological perspectives.
What does a name have to do with race? Sounds more like xenophobia.
It might also have to do with how many people from X country are associated with paper mills that publish garbage content. Unfortunately while it pads the individual resume, it washes the credibility of the rest as a whole.
I know from experience that once a lab finds bad data from a country over and over, they ignore anything submitted by that school/group/nation/region.
"race" when speaking of humans is the most undefined term you can come up with. It basically doesn't have any real scientific meaning anymore, that's why people call everything "racism" when in reality it often is something else.
> A race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society.[1] The term came into common usage during the 1500s, when it was used to refer to groups of various kinds, including those characterized by close kinship relations.[2] By the 17th century, the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits, and then later to national affiliations. Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[3][4] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][5][6] The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.
> Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,[14][15][16][17][18][19] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[20] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[9] or simplistic.[21] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.
I’m always happy when my writing gets noticed here, but culture war–connected content has a natural edge in environments like this, so I respect the site’s commitment to manually deweighting things like this to keep the overall focus more technical. It looks like this article has had further spread on HN than the initial hoax, which is all I personally was really hoping, so I’m more than satisfied.
I have noticed a really strong uptick in posts and comments specifically about race-based policy. Politics isn't necessarily off-topic for HN but this particular topic almost feels like it's being actively promoted.
