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

‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 674 posts

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#201

Post by Miner49er »

cabraca wrote: post #190
Miner49er wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's my entire point. They are working with a different definition then most people.

So you agree that this definition is biased and we shouldn't use it?

I think it would be better if there was more understanding of what people were talking about when they said "racism". I personally think that this definition of "racism", is more useful, but it clearly causes misunderstanding.

I personally don't think individual racists are that big of a deal anymore. Systemic racism is much more harmful.

I even think that a little bit of the prejudice-type racism can help people overcome racism. More on that: https://qz.com/398723/slavoj-zizek-thinks-political-correctn...

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#202

Post by eli_gottlieb »

dTal wrote: post #153
Miner49er wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. By that definition, most white people are probably "racist". If you understand the context used when they call them…

That's not even slightly what "racist" means, though. The accepted term for what you are describing is "privileged". If you're going to assert that every white person is "racist" regardless of their beliefs, you render the term meaningless and might as well just say "white".

>If you're going to assert that every white person is "racist" regardless of their beliefs, you render the term meaningless and might as well just say "white".

Sure, but that'll get you temp-banned from Facebook, so you have to spell it wypipo.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#204

Post by shoemakersteve »

nailer wrote: post #126
croon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collusion is a very specific charge. I wouldn't call "Russiagate" in any way debunked given this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...

> Collusion is a very specific charge. Yes. And Russiagate was the belief that the Trump org colluded with the Russians. Which was debunked. Not that citing Wikipedia means anything, but from the main article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... : > there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.

It was not "debunked" in any way. We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents. They just couldn't prove criminal intent. As far as Trump's obstruction of justice, correct me if I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the Mueller report basically said "He did it, but we couldn't come up with solid enough evidence that we would be confident we could indict a sitting president" and the last line saying something like "this absolutely does not absolve the president of wrongdoing". Basically if Trump was anyone other than the president, they would have charged him.

Without 100% rock-solid evidence, the legal complexity of trying to indict him (and him potentially pardoning himself) would have likely caused a constitutional crisis, and who knows what might have happened then. It wasn't worth the risk.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#205

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

another-dave wrote: post #56

I think the main culprit exacerbating this is the main stream media. "Vox pops" have formed part of filling air-time or column inches for a long while, but this is largely replaced now by journalists looking at Twitter and either a) using that as a stand-in for 'this is what the public think' or b) making it the story itself. Social media is no longer just "second screen" below-the-line commenting on events, it's hel…

>I think the main culprit exacerbating this is the main stream media.

I understand your argument but I also in no way want to distract from the culpability owned by social media companies, their product designers and managers, and the people who wrote the code to implement their desires.

They are ultimately guilty for the damage they have wrought on our societies. Traditional media companies may have exacerbated the issue with their participation, but they didn't create it.

>Unfortunately, I don't think we can roll back on the constant need for more 'breaking news'

We can't, but just like smoking cigarettes or shooting up opioids we can recognize it as a source of damage and addiction and start changing things to combat it.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#206

Post by mathnmusic »

insickness wrote: post #37

When I was younger, this was a quote that was always thrown around: “Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead Is this really true though or does change occur in ways that are a lot smaller, more incremental and undetectable than we realize?

Nassim Taleb also argues this in his "Minority rule". That all it takes a stubborn minority to bring along changes. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#207

Post by Miner49er »

refurb wrote: post #198
Miner49er wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say everyone is racist, by that definition. If you want to and are working to change or get rid of these systems, then you are not racist.

So whether you’re racist is determined by whether you are “working to change the system”? What does that mean? If I do yes to BLM does that mean I’m not racist? What if I speak in support of BLM? Is that a blanket dispensation against being racist?

Idk, I'm just trying to logically apply the definition. I don't think you could say Malcolm X, John Brown, or MLK are racist for example. It's at least possible not to be racist by their definition.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#208

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Miner49er wrote: post #138
cabraca wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know those diversity sessions... They claim everyone who is white or passing as white is racist. I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family. Literally hitler, i know. A colleague got fired because he wouldn't confess and left the session. So even if that Dean said he is a racist, he's…

Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. By that definition, most white people are probably "racist". If you understand the context used when they call them…

>These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of.

Sure, but this only reinforces u/rayiner's point. Nobody amended or replaced the Civil Rights Act. No vote was held to enshrine a broader definition of racism as legally and ethically binding on all citizens. Instead, a small clique of well-connected professional-class people are imposing this stuff top-down through their control of ostensibly private (but in fact, pseudo-private, often dependent on donations, subsidies, tax breaks, or public funding) institutions.

To my mind, the solution is simple: bring major public institutions back under full public governance and control. No more "we're on private property" rubbish from people taking tax dollars.

And, preferably, a fresh labor law enshrining protection for political opinions in the workplace that do not violate extent civil-rights laws.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#209

Post by jkingsbery »

barry-cotter wrote: post #36
charlesu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first link, some administrators took part in an anti-racism training and in the second a school got rid of an entrance exam. What’s extreme about either of those things?

The first describes a quasi-religious ritual in which all participants ritually affirm that they are unworthy sinners, racists. Those who believe get the satisfaction of publicly proclaiming their sin, signaling their superiority over the outsiders. Those who don’t believe have their faces rubbed in the fact that other people have the power to make them lie in public about who they are and what they believe. It shows…

The comparison to religious rituals is interesting. As someone who is Catholic, this looks to me sort of like an attempt at a group confession, but at least in the Catholic tradition we perform examinations of conscience [1] and go to confession [2] and we are told to come to terms with what we actually did wrong. You don't get away with some vague acknowledgement of being a sinner. As the Catechism says, "Through such an admission [a person] looks squarely at the sins he [or she] is guilty of, [and] takes responsibility for them."

Whether one agrees with Catholics on any number of things (and many reasonable people do not), there is a certain logic to the idea that before you can be better, you have to actually say what's wrong. Forcing a group of people to self label as racist in the way described above is unmoored from reality: even if one had done things that were racist in the past, there is no looking squarely at one's short comings, and there is no taking responsibility for anything. And for someone who hadn't done anything racist, or for someone who claims to have never done anything racist, it's just a show, and things won't actually get better in a meaningful way.

[1] https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacr...

[2] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s...

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#210

Post by ByteJockey »

charlesu wrote: post #46
throwawaycltr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't able to find the details about this course the faculty participated in but I wouldn't read too much into it. For some of these you must describe yourself as a racist and apologise for your evil. Suggesting that perhaps you're not that bad means it's even worse than we feared. I don't think someone who really was a "gatekeeper of white supremacy" would describe themselves that way.

Being racist isn’t the same as being evil. Just about everyone, to some extent, is racist. I don’t see how that’s an extreme claim. Humans are a social species. We have in-groups and out-groups. Often times the most salient marker for whether someone is in your group is whether they share certain phenotypes or language. There’s nothing weird about that. It’s expected. It’s our default setting. But it does lead to tre…

The claim is uncomfortable because the word "racism" has a connotation in some circles of basically being a klansman (or at the least of actively hating people based on nothing except for their race).

Admitting said claim for those people does not feel like acknowledging the system we live in against their will or that they have unconscious biases. It feels like acknowledging a serious character defect, worthy of ostracism, being fired, and possibly having a mob show up at your house.

Now, I'm not a prescriptivist. I acknowledge that language evolves, but it does not evolve the same way in every place at the same time. It tends to evolve in a particular place and spread out from there. The particular definition you're using has not spread to the entirety of society yet. Your pitch could really benefit from some localization to the various sub-dialects of the english language if you'd like less push back in the future.

Post reply on HN