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

> I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt.

The concept of blame was implied with the comment (paraphrased) startup culture is bad for women. That is blaming language, even though the victim was general and the guilt lies with a vague notion of 'culture'.

If you want to avoid discussions of blame it helps to avoid judgmental language.

    "$VAGUE_CULTURE is $NEGATIVE_WORD [for $VICTIMS]"
Where $NEGATIVE_WORD is something like 'bad' or 'problematic' and $VAGUE_CULTURE is some poorly specified concept that everyone is just supposed to get.

It's nice when people don't jump to conclusions and talk about guilt and blame when it hasn't been made 100% explicit, on the other hand it's also nice when ideas are followed through to logical conclusions rather than left hanging for others take personally.



"Startup culture is bad for women" doesn't imply anything about blame, except maybe blame for failure to change now that that harm is observable. The existence of a harm doesn't imply that it was foreseeable in advance such that there is any moral culpability attached to it.


Yes it does, because everyone participates in culture and culture is an ongoing thing. Or rather: it can be interpreted that way quite easily so don't make a statement like that and then blame people for talking about guilt.

If you don't want people talking about guilt then avoid judgmental language ("bad" in this case, "harm" in yours) until it's very clear that a judgment is necessary. Having an arm amputated in a car accident is "harm", it's "bad". Is not being hired for a position really "harm?" Maybe it is, but unlike bodily injury such a determination is not so trivial to make.




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

Search: