12 ms·

That's the literal interpretation given by DHH in his blog, when describing what happened. Personally I don't see how it is wrong, it literally says "first step

That's the literal interpretation given by DHH in his blog, when describing what happened. Personally I don't see how it is wrong, it literally says "first step to genocide". In any case, discussing whether it leads to genocide or not is clearly about political beliefs.

deanCommie 5y ago
Yes, and DHH's interpretation is completely uncharitable and naive, and I don't know why you are buying into it. The ADL's goal is to fight anti-semitism. The Holocaust opened some people's eyes about their anti-semitism and look to a new path. But in others it simply enabled and licensed their own prejudices because it allowed them to think "Well whatever I think/say/do isn't THAT bad." The ADL's pyramid shows that genocide doesn't happen overnight with the snap of the fingers. Each incremental step is minor and ignorable. But it starts with stereotyping and biased attitudes.
- scientismer 5y ago
  I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Your last sentence seems to indicate that you believe the funny names list was a step towards genocide. Yet at the same time you say DHH's interpretation was uncharitable? You literally say exactly what DHH claims was said. I don't know what the ADL is, but your belief in their theory is actually a political stance. It's not physics, it is a convoluted complex theory that can not be verified. Believing in it is "being on a side".
  - deanCommie 5y ago
    You're absolutely right, it is politics. Politics is all there is for discussions of subjects of humans interacting in groups. That's the definition ("Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.") By that bar, no discussion of genocide, systemic discrimination, or individual prejudices can ever occur in any circles.
    - scientismer 5y ago
      Well it presumably can't occur at Basecamp, because it could get you fired. People can still discuss it elsewhere, or secretly at Basecamp. I also didn't take sides for Basecamp, I merely pointed out that the decision was in fact about politics.
ascorbic 5y ago
You're making the same mistake as DHH, which is at the root of this. Nobody says it "leads directly to genocide". There are literally a list of steps that it needs to go through first. The point of the pyramid is to remind us that we need to stop it as early as possible. Saying that it's one step in the direction of genocide obviously doesn't mean it's going to cause genocide. It just means that when genocide does happen, it starts with the level below, and so on down the pyramid. Somebody doesn't wake up one morning thinking "well, I laughed at somebody's name yesterday, so I'm going to kill their family today", but laughing at a customer's name might normalise laughing at a coworker's name, which in turn might make it more likely that they'll be excluded from something and so on up.
- scientismer 5y ago
  Is it going to cause genocide or not? If it is not going to cause genocide, then to comment on it with respect to genocide doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, I really can not follow your logic. Somebody said it shouldn't be done, because the end result might be genocide. That's a pretty heavy gun to bring out for a list of funny names.
  - ascorbic 5y ago
    It really shouldn't be that hard. Of course the list doesn't cause genocide. Nobody is saying it does. What somebody did is share the ADL pyramid of hate. They didn't say "this list will cause genocide", they said normalising minor forms of discrimination makes more serious ones more likely. The point of the pyramid analogy is to tell you to stop climbing it. It doesn't say that you will keep escalating, it just says that it makes it easier for people to escalate. DHH overreacted, by claiming that meant they were accusing them of causing genocide. I previously assumed that he was deliberately misinterpreting it, but the fact that you, presumably an intelligent person, fail to see the meaning of it, then maybe he didn't grasp that either. But that's an even stonger argument in favour of being allowed to discuss it and explain the meaning, rather than banning all discussion.
    - scientismer 5y ago

deanCommie 5y ago

Yes, and DHH's interpretation is completely uncharitable and naive, and I don't know why you are buying into it. The ADL's goal is to fight anti-semitism. The Holocaust opened some people's eyes about their anti-semitism and look to a new path. But in others it simply enabled and licensed their own prejudices because it allowed them to think "Well whatever I think/say/do isn't THAT bad." The ADL's pyramid shows that genocide doesn't happen overnight with the snap of the fingers. Each incremental step is minor and ignorable. But it starts with stereotyping and biased attitudes.

scientismer 5y ago
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Your last sentence seems to indicate that you believe the funny names list was a step towards genocide. Yet at the same time you say DHH's interpretation was uncharitable? You literally say exactly what DHH claims was said. I don't know what the ADL is, but your belief in their theory is actually a political stance. It's not physics, it is a convoluted complex theory that can not be verified. Believing in it is "being on a side".
- deanCommie 5y ago
  You're absolutely right, it is politics. Politics is all there is for discussions of subjects of humans interacting in groups. That's the definition ("Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.") By that bar, no discussion of genocide, systemic discrimination, or individual prejudices can ever occur in any circles.
  - scientismer 5y ago
    Well it presumably can't occur at Basecamp, because it could get you fired. People can still discuss it elsewhere, or secretly at Basecamp. I also didn't take sides for Basecamp, I merely pointed out that the decision was in fact about politics.

ascorbic 5y ago

You're making the same mistake as DHH, which is at the root of this. Nobody says it "leads directly to genocide". There are literally a list of steps that it needs to go through first. The point of the pyramid is to remind us that we need to stop it as early as possible. Saying that it's one step in the direction of genocide obviously doesn't mean it's going to cause genocide. It just means that when genocide does happen, it starts with the level below, and so on down the pyramid. Somebody doesn't wake up one morning thinking "well, I laughed at somebody's name yesterday, so I'm going to kill their family today", but laughing at a customer's name might normalise laughing at a coworker's name, which in turn might make it more likely that they'll be excluded from something and so on up.

scientismer 5y ago
Is it going to cause genocide or not? If it is not going to cause genocide, then to comment on it with respect to genocide doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, I really can not follow your logic. Somebody said it shouldn't be done, because the end result might be genocide. That's a pretty heavy gun to bring out for a list of funny names.
- ascorbic 5y ago
  It really shouldn't be that hard. Of course the list doesn't cause genocide. Nobody is saying it does. What somebody did is share the ADL pyramid of hate. They didn't say "this list will cause genocide", they said normalising minor forms of discrimination makes more serious ones more likely. The point of the pyramid analogy is to tell you to stop climbing it. It doesn't say that you will keep escalating, it just says that it makes it easier for people to escalate. DHH overreacted, by claiming that meant they were accusing them of causing genocide. I previously assumed that he was deliberately misinterpreting it, but the fact that you, presumably an intelligent person, fail to see the meaning of it, then maybe he didn't grasp that either. But that's an even stonger argument in favour of being allowed to discuss it and explain the meaning, rather than banning all discussion.
  - scientismer 5y ago