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

Make America Hate Again

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 368 posts

Re: Make America Hate Again

#341

Post by Inconel »

selllikesybok wrote: post #331
Inconel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal…

What you're referring to the as the "traditional aspect" is #3 in the linked page. #3 coupled with power is #2 in the linked page.

Good point, although I think it could be argued that there could be a political doctrine based on racism at say the local or regional level, that wouldn't be widespread enough at the societal level to qualify as racism under some definitions. For example you could live in a city or town that adopts discriminatory laws against whites, this would meet the political doctrine aspect, but it still wouldn't be widespread enough in American society to qualify as racism.

I'm not very smart though so you should keep that in mind, I could be totally off base here.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#342

Post by Inconel »

jbooth wrote: post #209
_xhok wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it because it includes the implication that you're doing it to ingratiate yourself with people who are already your allies, and passing it off as bravery. That's more specific than insincere.

It's funny, because if you express opposition to racism and someone accuses you of virtue signalling, they're basically saying "nobody believes that anti-racist stuff, you're just saying it to look good". Very illuminating.

I'm not sure how illuminating that really is. I mean I'm sure that is what some people think when accusing others of virtue signalling, but I'm fairly certain others are basically saying "hey look, here's another privileged wealthy white tech guy who mostly lives in neighborhoods filled with similar people, and went to school with similar people, and runs entire companies filled with similar people, and is mostly friends with similar people, and benefits enormously from a system that affords him privilege while doing very little to confront those aspects of societal privilege, but yeah, look how totally not racist he is since he sent out a tweet saying racism is bad".

I also take issue with the idea that "expressing opposition to racism" really counts as "opposition". Talk is cheap, particularly if you're rich and privileged, and even more so if you're rich, privileged, and your talk is uncontroversial. Opposing racism requires every day actions, some of them difficult or uncomfortable, not self congratulatory tweets and blog posts. And especially not self congratulatory tweets and blog posts from CEOs or venture capitalists.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#343

Post by analbeads »

0xFFC wrote: post #57

Iranian here, I do completely respect his decision , although I am 100% against his decision. The only point I don't get is how Trump is not same Trump before election, He talked about banning Muslim (I was born in Muslim family , although I am not Muslim and I am atheist , I want to clear things out that I am not against ordinary people.), But he literally banned people from countries which have not participated in…

As a Trump supporter that supports the ban, I would much rather we give Saudi Arabia and Israel the boot and ally with Iran and Syria instead. We're stuck with Israel but I have some small hope that the other sides may flip as our relationship with Russia improves. The cold war of the 21st century is looking more and more like US+Russia vs. China+EU, it will be interesting to say the least how that will affect our alliances in the middle east.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#344

Post by analbeads »

metafunctor wrote: post #17
cperciva wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vouched it and it went back onto the front page, but it got promptly flagged away again. :-(

Yep. Sadly, it seems HN may be getting overrun by Trump apologists. Where's the next good place to be after HN gets gaslighted to not knowing the meaning of words?

I cannot imagine how thick of a bubble one would have to be living in for HN to seem like it is "overrun by Trump apologists"

Re: Make America Hate Again

#345

Post by grzm »

metafunctor wrote: post #17
cperciva wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vouched it and it went back onto the front page, but it got promptly flagged away again. :-(

Yep. Sadly, it seems HN may be getting overrun by Trump apologists. Where's the next good place to be after HN gets gaslighted to not knowing the meaning of words?

Sadly, it seems HN may be getting overrun by Trump apologists.

The HN community is pretty diverse, including both members who support Trump and those who don't. That diversity is important, because, among other things, I don't think any of us are accurately and wholly described by a single test, ideological or otherwise.

While you might very strongly disagree with members on a particular issue or issues, it's important to remain civil and respectful, even more so on contentious issues.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#346

Post by grzm »

hueving wrote: post #34
metafunctor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No attempt to ridicule here, just an attempt to convey a concept in one word. Gaslighting, I think, means a kind of manipulation where seeds of doubt are gradually sown, questioning the targets' perception and sanity. I still think it's a great word to use if someone tries to claim that banning entire countries and their citizens is not racist.

Yes, and labeling behavior as that concept is an appeal to ridicule. You are classifying something you disagree with as something designed to mess with your perception of reality rather than actually intellectually engaging it. >banning entire countries and their citizens is not racist Because it's not in most cases (unless a particular race only comes from that set of banned countries). It's xenophobic. Please use t…

With respect to the word racist and its usage, I think we're in the midst of watching it expand its meaning. I'm not sure what to think about it, given that I both strive to use words carefully and precisely, while also understanding that language changes and attempts to control it can prove ultimately (frustratingly?) futile. I'd hate for that to be one more thing that gets in the way of effective communication, particularly on difficult issues like this.

After all, the point is ultimately to communicate: if we let strict adherence to a single definition of a word from getting in the way of understanding. Better to just ask what meaning is being used if necessary, while perhaps lamenting the loss in precision in silence.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#347

Post by flukus »

grzm wrote: post #346
hueving wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and labeling behavior as that concept is an appeal to ridicule. You are classifying something you disagree with as something designed to mess with your perception of reality rather than actually intellectually engaging it. >banning entire countries and their citizens is not racist Because it's not in most cases (unless a particular race only comes from that set of banned countries). It's xenophobic. Please use t…

With respect to the word racist and its usage, I think we're in the midst of watching it expand its meaning. I'm not sure what to think about it, given that I both strive to use words carefully and precisely, while also understanding that language changes and attempts to control it can prove ultimately (frustratingly?) futile. I'd hate for that to be one more thing that gets in the way of effective communication, par…

Racist seems to be expanding and contracting. The whole "you can't be racist against white people" thing has been gaining traction lately. It's quickly becoming a word devoid of all meaning.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#348

Post by grzm »

flukus wrote: post #347
grzm wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect to the word racist and its usage, I think we're in the midst of watching it expand its meaning. I'm not sure what to think about it, given that I both strive to use words carefully and precisely, while also understanding that language changes and attempts to control it can prove ultimately (frustratingly?) futile. I'd hate for that to be one more thing that gets in the way of effective communication, par…

Racist seems to be expanding and contracting. The whole "you can't be racist against white people" thing has been gaining traction lately. It's quickly becoming a word devoid of all meaning.

That's a separate issue in finding common ground as to what amounts to negative discrimination. I'm definitely not interested in litigating this one.

Re: Make America Hate Again

#349

Post by someguydave »

derrickdirge wrote: post #305
reitanqild wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What then? This: "it seems like you are missing the point: in a pervasivly racist society, discriminatory behaviors creep in the subconscious of everyone, black/white/antiracist/whatever, and we have to consciously struggle with them." ? I have recently argued against my own misunderstanding of someones explaination and find that embarrassing so I am actually listening.

Yes, that. We all hold prejudices that we all need to be mindful of. Getting tangled in the weeds of arguing about semantics completely derails that point.

To be clear: Racism is important but arguing about its semantics isn'?

Re: Make America Hate Again

#350

Post by grzm »

derrickdirge wrote: post #305
reitanqild wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What then? This: "it seems like you are missing the point: in a pervasivly racist society, discriminatory behaviors creep in the subconscious of everyone, black/white/antiracist/whatever, and we have to consciously struggle with them." ? I have recently argued against my own misunderstanding of someones explaination and find that embarrassing so I am actually listening.

Yes, that. We all hold prejudices that we all need to be mindful of. Getting tangled in the weeds of arguing about semantics completely derails that point.

If there's miscommunication due to semantics that's preventing people from reaching understanding on an important issue, the semantics are indeed important. There has to be some area of common understanding to make that happen, which includes agreed-upon semantics.
Post reply on HN