Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can’t prove I meant X

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#101

Post by monocasa »

stale2002 wrote: post #98
monocasa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims?

> Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims? Sure, I can. There was a viral example when Zina Bash, a white house advisor, was sitting in a senate hearing, with her hand on her arms, in a way where her fingers kind of looked like the OK sign, but not really. As in, she did not "flash" the OK sign. Instead she had her hand resting on her arm in a certain position. And this went viral and everyone…

I mean, one tweet called her out, and the left wing media and the ADL came out specifically to defend her, specifically calling out that it needed more context to be white supremacist symbol. Ie. what I've been saying this whole time.

Also, it totally is an OK sign, she's just playing the circle game.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#102

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jaljal wrote: post #97
kazagistar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White is a dumb category anyways. A lot of non-whites have significant European heritage. Its asymmetrical in a way that can only be identified as cultural racism. But yeah, the correct full position is we want to secure a good and fair future for all children, and fair sometimes means compensating for historical and ongoing inequalities and injustices created by racism.

Whether it's a dumb category or not, it is a category that people use for the reasons you describe. Starting off as AnimalMuppet did (basically, trying to make white people feel bad for merely wanting for people of their category something which numerous institutions openly, explicitly, and unapologetically try to provide to people of other categories) is a pretty good way to convince white people that you can't be t…

I reject your characterization of my post. I deny even more your characterization of my intent. You are utterly mistaken, and I would suggest that you refrain from further attempts to ascribe motives to those with whom you disagree.

On to the your point. Yes, there are organizations and programs that explicitly try to help non-white children. And why? Because those children have disproportionately more poverty and worse outcomes than white children. So, you know, if you're going to try to fix things, maybe starting where the problems are is a reasonable idea.

If one of those organizations was explicitly trying to have "other" children have better outcomes than white children, that would be a problem. But trying to get to equal seems perfectly reasonable.

Now, if you want to argue that white parents don't hear that as the intent, I would agree that at least some probably don't. But your position seems to be something beyond merely "some of them hear it that way". I've no desire to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that anything further I will not agree with.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#103

Post by seph-reed »

seph-reed wrote: post #81
augustt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well assuming you looked it up, clicked on the first Google result, and read Fourteen Words, 14, or 14/88, is a reference to the fourteen-word slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, "[1] or the less commonly used "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth."[2] The slogans were originally coined by white supremacist David Lane,[3] a founding…

It honestly seems like we should be able to say: "Hey white-nationalist, I see that you really like white people and that's okay. You want white kids to be happy, go for it. If someone else wants green kids to be happy, they should do that too. Just don't be a dick to everyone else." If they're directing their energy towards anything good at all, it's probably best to recognize the validity there, while doing your be…

EDIT: or, you know, we could just keep throwing fuel into a flame war and then pretend it's not our fault because we didn't start the fire.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#104

Post by hawkice »

saagarjha wrote: post #92
monocasa wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That person is also defending the 14 words, saying "it's ok to be white", and throwing around phrases like "white genocide". I'm pretty sure they're just a straight up white nationalist.

Or a troll, since they're being purposefully disingenuous. It doesn't really matter either way, though.

There might be an important social good in treating Nazis and trolls pretending to be Nazis the same - fairness, at the very least, and a desperately needed bulwark against people only pretending to be pretending to be odious.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#105

Post by stale2002 »

monocasa wrote: post #101
stale2002 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims? Sure, I can. There was a viral example when Zina Bash, a white house advisor, was sitting in a senate hearing, with her hand on her arms, in a way where her fingers kind of looked like the OK sign, but not really. As in, she did not "flash" the OK sign. Instead she had her hand resting on her arm in a certain position. And this went viral and everyone…

I mean, one tweet called her out, and the left wing media and the ADL came out specifically to defend her, specifically calling out that it needed more context to be white supremacist symbol. Ie. what I've been saying this whole time. Also, it totally is an OK sign, she's just playing the circle game.

Some defended her and some attacked her.

Thats the point. The fact that anyone was even attacking her in the first place, and this went viral at all, is still a problem.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#106

Post by jaljal »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #102
jaljal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it's a dumb category or not, it is a category that people use for the reasons you describe. Starting off as AnimalMuppet did (basically, trying to make white people feel bad for merely wanting for people of their category something which numerous institutions openly, explicitly, and unapologetically try to provide to people of other categories) is a pretty good way to convince white people that you can't be t…

I reject your characterization of my post. I deny even more your characterization of my intent. You are utterly mistaken, and I would suggest that you refrain from further attempts to ascribe motives to those with whom you disagree. On to the your point. Yes, there are organizations and programs that explicitly try to help non-white children. And why? Because those children have disproportionately more poverty and wo…

"What does the saying say to them?" You said this repeatedly. What is the point in such a question, if not to make the target feel bad for those hypothetical people hearing the saying?

As far as the institutions go, you're not saying anything that anyone here is unaware of. Everyone here is totally familiar with the justifications for those institutions. That is not the point.

The point is that you led off by pulling the heart strings of white people merely for saying they want something for people of their category, when they can look around and see that not only is every other category allowed to say that and want that for people of their category, they actually have institutions that are openly explicitly trying to provide it to them.

The appearance is that you are holding them to a different standard than those other people, which is an indication of bias. That is how you fell into the trap.

It's not a good starting point if your next point is that you're just trying to make everyone equal. How can they trust you?

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#107

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jaljal wrote: post #106
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject your characterization of my post. I deny even more your characterization of my intent. You are utterly mistaken, and I would suggest that you refrain from further attempts to ascribe motives to those with whom you disagree. On to the your point. Yes, there are organizations and programs that explicitly try to help non-white children. And why? Because those children have disproportionately more poverty and wo…

"What does the saying say to them?" You said this repeatedly. What is the point in such a question, if not to make the target feel bad for those hypothetical people hearing the saying? As far as the institutions go, you're not saying anything that anyone here is unaware of. Everyone here is totally familiar with the justifications for those institutions. That is not the point. The point is that you led off by pulling…

No, that wasn't my point at all. I was replying to Kaiyou, who couldn't understand how those words could be considered as being associated with the far right. I explained exactly how they could be considered as saying something within the far right. (That it is associated with the far right is shown by who initially said it.)

So, when those words are spoken by the far right, can you see a problem?

Could someone in complete innocence say the same words, and have no ill intent? Sure. But such words are also said by the far right. Do you hold them as having no ill intent?

I've got a problem with the meaning the far right puts on the words. Do you not?

Frankly, the thing you are arguing and arguing and arguing about is not something I care very much about. Innocent whites can see the words as being completely benign? Yeah, dog whistles are like that.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#108

Post by jaljal »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #107
jaljal wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What does the saying say to them?" You said this repeatedly. What is the point in such a question, if not to make the target feel bad for those hypothetical people hearing the saying? As far as the institutions go, you're not saying anything that anyone here is unaware of. Everyone here is totally familiar with the justifications for those institutions. That is not the point. The point is that you led off by pulling…

No, that wasn't my point at all. I was replying to Kaiyou, who couldn't understand how those words could be considered as being associated with the far right. I explained exactly how they could be considered as saying something within the far right. (That it is associated with the far right is shown by who initially said it.) So, when those words are spoken by the far right , can you see a problem? Could someone in c…

How does saying "What does the saying say to them?" demonstrate that the words could be considered as being associated with the far right? Please be specific.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#109

Post by stallmanite »

mc32 wrote: post #88
Veen wrote: post #4

> "this sentence could mean y as well as x so you can’t prove I meant x" It's interesting that a lot of online debate and media commentary uses the opposite technique: > "this sentence could—with varying degrees of plausibility—mean bad thing y as well as good thing x, so you can't prove you didn't really mean to say the bad thing." The principle of anti-charity.

I agree and I didn’t take notice till the day I learned a woman flying to ZA wrote some quick satire on twitter before departing, when she landed many hours later she learned her tweet was taken straight and was summarily fired with the tireless assistance of the twitter-rage-mob. I agree with Cleese and Chapelle. It’s madness.

I am curious to read about this but googling “woman flight ZA twitter outrage“ is getting me nothing. Could you provide a name?

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#110

Post by monocasa »

stale2002 wrote: post #105
monocasa wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, one tweet called her out, and the left wing media and the ADL came out specifically to defend her, specifically calling out that it needed more context to be white supremacist symbol. Ie. what I've been saying this whole time. Also, it totally is an OK sign, she's just playing the circle game.

Some defended her and some attacked her. Thats the point. The fact that anyone was even attacking her in the first place, and this went viral at all, is still a problem.

So you agree that the left came out to defend her on this?

She isn't a victim of the this concept being called out, but instead the white supremacists who decided to start using a contextual clue that they're being explicitly racist a common sign just because of the chaos it causes, and not the people calling out that racists are doing this.

Post reply on HN