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

251–260 of 308 posts

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#251

Post by peterfirefly »

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…

> [...] and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window.

How do you do that with a "teen" of that size?

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#252

Post by peterfirefly »

EpicEng wrote: post #169
oso2k wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judaism has and always will be a religion and not an ethnicity or race.

Please describe the difference between racial and religious discrimination. In practice, how does it differ? It's all the same; some group doesn't like you because of who and what you are.

Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are.

You choose whether to follow an evil religion.

You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant.

Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating against "race" or ethnicity.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#253

Post by peterfirefly »

fsloth wrote: post #142
wutangson1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Plato is the author of the Dialogues of Socrates. My bad if my last sentence was written unclearly to seems as if Aristotle was a student of Socrates. Yet, I suggest going back to that same link you posted and read all of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle defines courage and what is the only real justification for war. After reading Book II, by the time you get to Book VII, you may not think Aris…

As an example of Aristotle being quite useless: When I need to figure out mechanics I'd rather use Newton's mechanics than Aristotle's.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/gait_anim.html

Part 8:

"The reason why snakes are limbless is first that nature makes nothing without purpose, but always regards what is the best possible for each individual, preserving the peculiar essence of each and its intended character, and secondly the principle we laid down above that no Sanguineous creature can move itself at more than four points. Granting this it is evident that Sanguineous animals like snakes, whose length is out of proportion to the rest of their dimensions, cannot possibly have limbs; for they cannot have more than four (or they would be bloodless), and if they had two or four they would be practically stationary; so slow and unprofitable would their movement necessarily be. "

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#254

Post by sillysaurus3 »

MetaCosm wrote: post #250
malyk wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could we not be so aggressive? It's an important issue, and the best way to close people's minds is to belittle them. Besides, malyk's concerns are legitimate, and they've spent time researching this issue. We should be the ones willing to listen to all points of view. I know passions are high about this, but progress requires patience and a willingness to explore all the ideas.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#255

Post by MetaCosm »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #254
MetaCosm wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could we not be so aggressive? It's an important issue, and the best way to close people's minds is to belittle them. Besides, malyk's concerns are legitimate, and they've spent time researching this issue. We should be the ones willing to listen to all points of view. I know passions are high about this, but progress requires patience and a willingness to explore all the ideas.

Aggressive? My post was mellow except my response to

> I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests

which is a perspective that will LITERALLY get someone killed if they believe it. That is why I used uppercase, because it is actually really important, not everyone takes the time to properly research what rights they have (and don't have).

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#256

Post by mekoka »

kroy wrote: post #248
lukifer wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To me privilege and oppression are two sides of the same coin though.

No, they're not. A child may benefit from the privileges of parents' favoritism, it doesn't imply that her siblings are oppressed.

Privilege and Oppression are 2 distinct coins with 2 faces each. There's privilege (+1) and lack thereof (0), and there's oppression (-1) and lack thereof (0).

Being well aware of your privileges won't necessarily make you see people in "the norm" as victims, but it may give you pause when trying to form a hasty opinion of them.

Unfortunately, as stated, it's much harder to recognize one's own privileges, than it is to identify a form of oppression. So people keep presuming to know what everybody else should be, should do, should think, should eat, etc, because they presume that the apparent lack of prejudice signals a levelled playing field.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#257

Post by fsloth »

fsloth wrote: post #142
wutangson1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Plato is the author of the Dialogues of Socrates. My bad if my last sentence was written unclearly to seems as if Aristotle was a student of Socrates. Yet, I suggest going back to that same link you posted and read all of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle defines courage and what is the only real justification for war. After reading Book II, by the time you get to Book VII, you may not think Aris…

As an example of Aristotle being quite useless: When I need to figure out mechanics I'd rather use Newton's mechanics than Aristotle's.

Downvotes :)? I would like to see you try land to the moon using Aristotle rather than the mechanics formulated by Newton...

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#258

Post by fsloth »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #167
fsloth wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example of Aristotle being quite useless: When I need to figure out mechanics I'd rather use Newton's mechanics than Aristotle's.

He's quite good for platform games.

But not so much for interplanetary trajectories :)

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#259

Post by coldtea »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #240
coldtea wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To choose one category of crime, blacks make up about half of of murderers. However, there are twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks. Those whites don't have the same heritage of poverty, bad education and racism against them though. Nor are over-represented by a huge margin in incarceration rates. > Further, international comparisons suggest you are wrong about American-style "destitution" causing cri…

Moron4hire stated a very clear theory: the disparity in crime rates is caused by income/poverty. That particular theory is wrong. Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things. Can you clearly state what that combination is and what evidence would prove your views wrong? Or are your views not even wrong?

>Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things.

Not just me. Sociologists also.

>Can you clearly state what that combination is

* Emphasis on extreme individualism (everyone for himself, or at best, his family) that destroys community bonds (that in other places serve to provide assistance to the individual, guidance etc).

* Extremely materialistic societal views, where the official national "dream" is about making loads of money.

(to prevent easy rebuttals: almost everywhere people would like to make loads of money, the difference is in how is this accepted / embedded in the collective psyche. E.g. in Japan, for an example, collaboration and being a part of something bigger is prioritized instead of "making it", whereas in some European countries an overt desire for money would be considered tacky).

In the US this also goes with the idea that those that didn't made it are "losers" -- and that they also only have themselves to blame ("didn't try enough" etc), something that's not the sentiment in other countries.

* People that have a history of little over a century of being "free" from slavery (with all that means for their chances of inheriting family fortune accrued over the years, access to good education etc), and little over 50 years of not being officially seggregated, while still being unoficially and covertly seggregated, denied jobs, targeted by police etc because of they color.

* Lack of "safety nets", a bad social services system, and a widespread contempt about the people making use of what exists (coupons, etc).

* Lack of proper education and cultural awareness in inner city schools. Those kids are mostly left to fail.

And other things besides.

>and what evidence would prove your views wrong?

Observing places with the same general conditions as described above which do not have elevated crime levels.

For example France's example with the "banlieues" is a similar case, with similar output.

>Or are your views not even wrong?*

I find this uncalled for, not to mention insulting.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#260

Post by peterfirefly »

vacri wrote: post #247
peterfirefly wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you. I wondered what that 'flag' link was for.

I think it should be used to suppress spam and not for suppressing dissent, though.

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

Precisely. I see plenty of people in this thread who have a fixed opinion with very little to back it up.

And it is not those who say that there is a measurable (and measured!) difference in intelligence or violence between blacks and whites.

smtddr's post nearby is clearly in that category. The hirhome link is hilarious and would be wonderful as satire if it weren't for Poe's law.

Post reply on HN