21–30 of 108 posts
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.
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 sur…
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.
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.
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 sur…
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).
"> 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 posi…
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 th…
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 dres…
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
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.
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.
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...