Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

Post by namdnay » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

snakeboy wrote: post #170

commandlinefan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project I've seen people suggest that censorship is only censorship if the government does it, but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first.

> but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first. I think you've misunderstood this post. This is less like a "white's only" restaurant, and more like an Italian food restaurant. It's supporting a cultural niche, not excluding another.

Post by mjmsmith » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #25

afavour wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine the outrage if someone had made “X for white people”. There’d be riots in streets. The difference between majority and minority is surely not that difficult to comprehend from outside the US?

They are only a “minority” because someone decided to come up with a way (race) to divide people into groups where one group is bound to end up smaller, and somehow claim that division is of significant importance. IMO the solution to that problem is definitely not to reinforce that division.

Post by umvi » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 3:18 PM UTC

alexanderskates wrote: post #137

h3daz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.

What does "X for white people" look like though? The only reason that "X for black people" exists is that black people are a minority group and aren't sufficiently catered to by X, which is already more or less "X for white people" by default, at least in the US and much of Europe. As such, any product that that markets itself explicitly to white people (again, only referencing the US and Europe here) is much more li…

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #151

afavour wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what country you're from but if you don't think there are subcultures in your country under-represented by the dominant media I'd assert you're almost definitely wrong. Perhaps it feels a little strange from the outside that such a subculture is definitively "black" but yeah, that's basically how things are in the US. The country has a deep history of racism and black people being literal slaves, in that…

It depends on where parent is from. There are a lot of relatively monolithic countries from an ethnic perspective. To the broader point, I think what Uzo is talking about is "representation." Which doesn't just mean "some type of person on the screen." It means the full diversity of experiences and aspirations of that type of person... on the screen. Living Single isn't Friends with African Americans. It's African Am…

Post by bobmaxup » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

poeron wrote: post #111

h3daz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.

The reason for that, in the US at least, is that "for white people" is implied by default. Everything is always for white people. So when you go and spell it out explicitly, "X for white people" ends up having a connotation of "X for white people only ."