51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed. Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class . There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling'…
my hero!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it is not reasonable to say Milo is a white supremacist, in fact they seem to hate him. This says something, I think, about how the term alt right is used. While white supremacists coined the term, they clearly don't own it anymore. Whomever Milo is the leader of, they don't overlap well with white supremacists. alt-right.
They hate him, all right. He's half Jewish. That's enough. Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct - that it was white nationalists who first did this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
One of the key points in this article is that when you divide people into identity groups, some of those groups are going to feel neglected. As you get at, some of those groups that feel neglected are groups you and I would consider privileged and protected. Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them…
This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
Why is this flagged? Is a well reasoned discussion of the entire future direction of American politics -- where Silicon Valley is -- somehow less relevant to the tech industry than "The Troubled Friendship of Leo Tolstoy and Maxim Gorky" or "Volkswagen plans 30k job cuts worldwide," both on the front page right now? I suggest that there is a systemic bias on Hacker News: any article about identity politics that is le…
The user base of Hacker News is strongly informed by, and representative of, a very specific political strain, so it's not terribly surprising to see an article like this, which questions the foundation and value of one of that strain's core tenets, get flagged to oblivion by users. I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example,…
Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The user base of Hacker News is strongly informed by, and representative of, a very specific political strain, so it's not terribly surprising to see an article like this, which questions the foundation and value of one of that strain's core tenets, get flagged to oblivion by users. I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example,…
It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in cases such as this, where it seems that the article was flagged for no other reason than that many HN readers disagree with its content and wish to suppress the diffusion thereof. Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag."…
I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the key points in this article is that when you divide people into identity groups, some of those groups are going to feel neglected. As you get at, some of those groups that feel neglected are groups you and I would consider privileged and protected. Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them…
> You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group... This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in cases such as this, where it seems that the article was flagged for no other reason than that many HN readers disagree with its content and wish to suppress the diffusion thereof. Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag."…
The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to make a strong case against the way they do their work. I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend long…
When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers.
I want to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it.
Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They hate him, all right. He's half Jewish. That's enough. Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
I definitely shouldn't have said 'coined', since coining usually refers to the first time that the term is used in a particular way. I have no idea if white nationalists coined the term. I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct -…
I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.
I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists.
I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism interchangeably.
I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed. Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class . There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling'…