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

Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

onbeing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 308 posts

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#241

Post by pcthrowaway »

RivieraKid wrote: post #156
pcthrowaway wrote: post #94

While Einstein only fully stopped eating animals shortly before his death, there is some indication he also felt uneasy accepting the general attitude on animals as food for some time before that. This is prejudice that that most of us have yet to shake still.

It's subjective, I don't feel that eating animals is wrong.

Do you feel that it would be wrong to kill a healthy dog for food? While I get that morality is subjective, I think people would have said similar things about black people back when Einstein wrote this.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#242

Post by trhway »

icantthinkofone wrote: post #231
trhway wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your…

He charged the officer and was shot once. Then he charged again and was shot again. Then, he came within 10 feet to tackle the officer and that was when he was killed. This was not 10 (or so) consecutive shots. If the first shots didn't stop him, why would you believe the second grouping would? Or the next? What was Brown's intent once he reached the officer?

Brown didn't attack or charged the officer. That's a lie by the officer. Ever watched "Chicago"? "They both reached for the gun".

Prosecutor, just accidentally, a clerical error mind you, withheld witness' transcripts from the grand jury in the Brown's case.

We all know what happened - Brown was executed for angering the officer, for not demonstrating full submission from the moment the officer started harassing Brown for jaywalking, ie. instead of just writing the ticket for jaywalking, the officer went on power trip ...

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#243

Post by lukifer »

kroy wrote: post #14

This is really fascinating. This part particularly struck me: "[Americans'] sense of equality and human dignity is mainly limited to men of white skins. Even among these there are prejudices of which I as a Jew am clearly conscious" As a non-black person of color, this has been my access point to issues of race and oppression. Thinking about the (relatively) minor prejudices and indignities I've experienced made me a…

> And it's also made me aware of the privilege that I do enjoy as a college-educated male who's the son of college educated parents.

What's scary about privilege is that it's usually invisible.

I think it's fair to say that the majority of humans experience both prejudice and privelege, albeit of radically different quantities and qualities. But while we can't help but be keenly aware of the former, the latter tends to hide itself in our definitions of "normal".

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#244

Post by lukifer »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #151
dreamdu5t wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky is a hypocritical weasel. Einstein isn't admired because he chose a life of research... he's admired because of his research. Russel is also incredibly admired, then and now.

Can you explain why he's hypocritical?

I think the assumption is that Chomsky is villifying Einstein for not doing enough, when in fact he's villifying a culture (both in and out of academia) that punishes those who go too far afield with radical ideas.

Hence, why this seems hypocritical: Chomsky made his trade-off, and continues to enjoy a comfortable professor's life. I think it's fair to say that Chomsky has done far more political activism in his life than Einstein, but far less than Russell.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#245

Post by vacri »

pvnick wrote: post #107
ivraatiems wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence leads you to believe that it will, in fact, die on its own?

Racism's trajectory is such that it is quickly disappearing. That is the case even in the deep south where I'm from (this is fairly profound considering our civil war defeat is still a big deal in the minds of many), but rather the racism you do encounter is in response to perceived injustices such as those I listed. Thus the hyper-vigilance perpetuated by the media does more to harm racism's disappearance than to ha…

Also, because racism is illogical. Irrational ideas tend to be replaced by good ones in the "free market" of ideas.

This is a rather optimistic statement. It's actually quite hard to get people thinking critically, and to push rationalist and scientific points of view in the public mind.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#246

Post by vacri »

Retra wrote: post #35
swatow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that his views on race in America are now mainstream, while his views on Zionism are rarely voiced outside the far left or far right. It seems to me that his views are based on a consistent application of principals, while American politics isn't.

Most mainstream Americans' political principles are variations on "defend your side at all costs." An ideology without a (real) problem to solve is a very dangerous thing.

Viewing the US from the outside, it really is puzzling that in that land of freedom - where the ability of the individual to express themself is prized above all others - happens to be a place where people are pigeonholed by which one of two political parties they vote for, and it's frequently considered to be all you need to know to know everything about a person's opinions. "Well he would say that, he's a Democrat" kind of thing.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#247

Post by vacri »

peterfirefly wrote: post #152
audioburn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a fact that rich black students on average have a lower IQ and do worse on tests than the poorest of white students. Citation needed

Why is the post you replied to flagkilled? I thought it was pretty much an empirical fact? And who does the flagkilling?

Open a comment's 'link' page and if you have above X karma, you can see a 'flag' link. Collect a couple of those, and you get flagged.

Likely that comment was flagkilled because it's a standard bigoted statement, known to be controversial. If you're going to make statements like that, then you really need to back them up with data. Using 'everyone knows this' and similar are some standard weasel-words that bigots use. Likewise, it was a brand new account created just for a few flamebait comments. It's not exactly honest debating.

Basically, if you are going to make an academic comment on a sensitive topic, you should take more care in how you present it.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#248

Post by kroy »

lukifer wrote: post #243
kroy wrote: post #14

This is really fascinating. This part particularly struck me: "[Americans'] sense of equality and human dignity is mainly limited to men of white skins. Even among these there are prejudices of which I as a Jew am clearly conscious" As a non-black person of color, this has been my access point to issues of race and oppression. Thinking about the (relatively) minor prejudices and indignities I've experienced made me a…

> And it's also made me aware of the privilege that I do enjoy as a college-educated male who's the son of college educated parents. What's scary about privilege is that it's usually invisible. I think it's fair to say that the majority of humans experience both prejudice and privelege, albeit of radically different quantities and qualities. But while we can't help but be keenly aware of the former, the latter tends…

That's a really good point. To me privilege and oppression are two sides of the same coin though. To recognize one is to, by deduction, recognize the other.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#249

Post by trhway »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #216
trhway wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your…

The officer was equipped with a P229 Sig Sauer, which loads with either 9mm or .40S&W rounds. I've been unable to find whether the autopsy indicated 9mm or .40 rounds, but if it's 9mm, it's most certainly not true that a single round would stop someone who's charging towards you and is flooded with more adrenaline than they've ever experienced in their life. This phenomenon has been documented time and time again, as…

pure BS. That fat kid could have been stopped by a punch, let a one shot from 9mm. And that even if he was attacking the officer, which he wasn't to start with.

Again, there wasn't need to kill, yet there was a right to do it - kid stupidly resisted harassment and even tried to move away ("run" in official language as he couldn't really run due to the fat) - and officer executed his right as they usually do to send the message that even minor disobedience will be severely punished.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#250

Post by MetaCosm »

malyk wrote: post #239
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the comment. About this: What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? It's an officer's job/duty to chase down someone who just attacked them. I went into some of that at https://n…

But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. And this is why…

A lot of your post is you just saying things you think with no evidence, what your "gut" tells you, etc. Not going to respond to those, because they are not very interesting. Let me share one of my personal opinions with no basis in fact: cake is superior to pie, there I said it!

> But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself?

We actually got into a bit of a debate at dinner discussing if you have the right to defend yourself against an unjust arrest -- short version: "nope". In 1900 there was a case that went that way, but since then it was been reversed... and even more specifically overruled in various state ordinances. Even if you did have the right to physical resist (again, you don't, so don't resist arrest) an "unjust arrest" ... you aren't informed of the reason you are being arrested at the time of arrest, you don't have enough information to even claim it is unjust.

> If Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee.

This is put forth as factual "of course". But, it isn't the common case -- most people when assaulted (justified or not) by a police officer surrender, and if it escalates to having a gun drawn... they... you guessed it, surrender. The vast majority of police officers make it to retirement without firing their weapon while on duty.

> First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge.

You can think what you want, but you have NO RIGHT to EVER resist arrest, that is the simple fact, there is no law on your side, and it will end horribly for you. You submit, you get arrested, you offer NO resistance and then you take action AFTER the fact (sue, try to get them fired, take it to the press, whatever).

Post reply on HN