In the last couple years especially I feel like I am walking on eggshells when talking to people. Especially when talking to people I don't know as well. It feels so easy to offend someone these days and I'm getting sick of it.
I've been having to unfollow a ton of podcasts recently because no matter how far from being related to politics some podcasts are, they just love to make sure a chunk of the episode is devoted to calling white people privileged and talking about different groups burdens. I was listening to a podcast episode talking about Skyways in a city and somehow half the podcast ended up being about how the skyways affected certain racial groups. It's a podcast that is supposed to be focused on the cool architectural features and infrastructure of cities. Somehow it ends up being a political podcast about racial inequality.
Sometimes I just want to be able to relax, but I feel like wherever I go whether it be TV, Movies, Podcasts, or even the news, I feel like I am being attacked wherever I go and that I have to be afraid of offending someone with what I say.
Even just making this comment I'm afraid it's going to be downvoted because of mentioning races in a somewhat negative sounding way.
These people (the genuine ones) lack context-awareness, so they could always find something racist, sexist, ableist, whateverist in anything you say.
I just named something "blacklist" a couple of days ago. It has nothing to do with races, nor slavery. The only thing they have is a person in-between who connects the two because s/he is a troll, or because lacks context-awareness or whatever.
Yeah I personally try and avoid the word police. If I am using a grammatically and contextually correct word I am not going to let someone tell me I can't use the word.
What's hilarious to me is that I think the people who find there to be a problem with these words are the racist ones themselves. They are taking a word out of context and being offended by it out of context. They are the ones looking at a word and thinking negative racist thoughts.
When I use the word "master" or "blacklist" it has nothing to do with any old historical context or usage of the word. I am quite clearly using the word in a technical context as per the dictionary definition of the word. Anyone who thinks that is offensive is the true problem in my opinion.
> What's hilarious to me is that I think the people who find there to be a problem with these words are the racist ones themselves.
That is what I believe as well. I am not that preoccupied with races to make such associations. In all fairness, I still have no clue what "blacklist" has to do with races or slavery, even after having been "shown" this association, because it makes no sense given the context.
There might be people out there who genuinely do not know what the term means in the context of CS/IT, but then instead of assuming that everyone using the term is racist, they should try to figure out the actual meaning.
Killing a child or a parent in the context of computer science is something completely different than... actually killing a child or a parent. :) I can imagine "just kill the child" being misinterpreted, but that can only be the case if someone takes it out of context. Once the context is known, there should be no confusion or mystery.
> These people (the genuine ones) lack context-awareness
No, they are very much aware of the context. Most of these people are just bullies, who have found a new way to mask their toxic behavior in the name of a good cause.
I added "genuine ones" for a reason. There are lots of trolls, that is for sure. I cannot tell if there are more trolls than genuine ones though.
I have seen bots, too. I remember there was a bot that sent pull requests to over 1000 projects if I remember correctly. All the pull requests involved changing words only, such as "blacklist" to "blocklist" or whatever. You know what is funny? Many of them were merged.
I understand that reckoning with racism is uncomfortable, but I don't understand how that 99 percent invisible episode is a personal attack on you. If anything, it's a reminder that well intensioned design (saving downtown) can have consequences (increased policing of Black men).
I have seen and listened to a lot of race-conscious content over the last few years. As a white man, I can't say I've taken any of it as a personal attack. I'd be happy to talk more about this out of thread.
It's not that it is a personal attack, it's more that I expect more talk about the actual architecture and infrastructure behind the topic versus making it a political topic.
I didn't notice them providing any statistics in regards to the racial issues. All I noticed was anecdotal evidence and an incredibly biased account of a single police encounter that happened back in 2014. They are using one guys story and a single incident involving police in order to talk about the negatives it had on other races. These are bold claims with little backing given.
This is why I don't like when podcasts like this try and tackle these issues. Because they end up being incredibly biased and one-sided. They didn't provide the whole story on the police incident, nor did they provide any other points of views or statistic on the racial issues they mentioned.
I like hearing well-researched and articulated pieces about racial inequality. What I don't like is hearing a biased opinion/anecdote filled podcast episode about it.
It seems every Podcast I listen to now always has some weird need to make it political. This never used to be the case even just a couple years ago. Now we even see sporting programs taking sides in politics and it just seems so unnecessary.
I often spend too much time deep into the weeds on these kinds of topics much like I am now. Sometimes I just want to consume some media without politics being involved. However it rarely seems like I am able to anymore. Even TV shows I watch now are starting to feel ruined and lack the good script writing they used to in favour of shoehorning whatever current PC thing is trending.
> I expect more talk about the actual architecture and infrastructure behind the topic versus making it a political topic.
The problem with this line of thinking is that everything is political. If they had chosen not to address the possible racial implications, other people who felt strongly about those may have felt that the negative social impact that they perceive was being deliberately ignored, and they would have been right to the same extent that you are.
It is similar to the choice of making or not making global warming a game mechanic in the Civilization series of games: either option will be seen as "political" by some people and "apolitical" by others. It's a distinction without a difference.
Not saying something is not inherently less political than talking about it.
Note: I have no idea or even opinion about the actual political implications of skyways. Perhaps they are a real problem, perhaps they are a fringe idea like opposition to the word "blacklist" (a word which existed in the English language since Prince John).
This is the most standard of social justice talking points. I don’t like it at all. But putting that aside, how would I go about determining whether it’s true? Take all y’all’s word for it? Listen and believe? Read exclusively intersectional literature until it takes over my thought processes?
What is the truth value of this stance? If I say viewing everything as political is a motivated choice, you say it could only be so for the privileged. And so I’m stuck in my little fishbowl, and you’re over there in whatever your situation is, and never the twain shall meet.
If only you knew. Literally all I do in my old age is listen to everybody and try to work out where they’re coming from. I thought long and hard about my rebuttal, and I might have almost had a pretty good one. But instead I’ll just say thanks for giving me occasion to think a lot.
So here I am talking about someone dismissing what someone says by calling them privileged and boom, one of them shows up!
What did this contribute to the conversation? Good job you got your jab in calling me privileged in a conversation where I am talking about how stupid of a response that is that people will say.
You didn't correct me on anything. You called me privileged based on a weird assumption you somehow drew from what I've said.
Regardless of what my current status may be or what you think it may be it's not very relevant. Because that would ignore the rest of my life which you also have zero idea about. You're again making assumption. You don't know if I've had an easy life or a really hard life. You don't know anything but act like you know something about me and are using that to try and belittle me.
Anyway this is clearly going nowhere as all you have done is repeat the same insult twice and provide zero constructive conversation or rebuttals to what I've said. You can throw around buzzwords and the big ol P word (privilege) but until you actually respond to what I said I'm wasting my time here.
Please do not reply to me anymore. I'm not interested in hearing insults anymore. Do keep in mind it violates the rules here.
Do not assume what my life has been life. Do not assume what my privilege is. And do not reply to me anymore. You are incredibly rude and unproductive. You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. You throw around buzzwords, provide zero facts/evidence/research and then throw down an insult.
FYI:calling someone privileged, making assumptions, and being a jerk doesn't fix systematic racism.
Jesus Christ, stop downvoting and flagging these comments. As much as I disagree with the comment, it correctly explains what the disagreement is, which is that we have different definitions of racism.
According to this brave new definition of racism, KKK is not inherently racist, because it's a systemic issue, not an individual issue.
The KKK were part of the system, and the system in many states supported them, either tacitly or even openly in some cases. Members of the KKK rose to the highest positions in local and federal politics and influenced police and lawmaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...
The rise of the different incarnations of the Klan can be directly tied to politics of segregation, Jim Crow laws and other factors that in some form continue to hobble black Americans in particular, to this day.
It is a systemic problem, perpetuated by a system that needs an underclass of disposable labor to oppress.
But are not now. There are groups with similar messages that never had any power.
BLM also have supporters in the highest positions and also influenced police and lawmaking, some places actually did defunded their police force.
My point still stands. According to that definition, in the alternate universe KKK or NSDAP would not be considered racist, if they didn't have the majority of support.
Saying that racism in the US is a systemic issue does not imply that individual racism does not exist. One is the basis of the other, as people with racist views implement racist laws and systems, which in turn embolden more people.
The KKK didn't come out of nowhere, they came out of a deeply racist society and system. Similarly the NSDAP didn't come out of nowhere, they came out of a racist (deeply anti-semitic) society and system, which they leveraged along with severely wounded German national pride and massive international sanctions after WWI, in order to rise to power.
Systemic and individual racism go hand in hand, but you cannot fight racism one individual at a time, there simply aren't enough hours in a day. You have to attack the underlying structures and systems that perpetuate racism.
Fighting against the thin blue line, and defunding the police in the US is one way to fight that fight, because of how selective policing is based on race and social standing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HehnDHNoItk
You know, you say things about having a privilege of being ignorant, but you seem to be unaware that this is exactly what you're doing. You all have the privilege of basically downplaying racism to be a just systemic issue of black people not earning or being employed as much, or cops shooting slightly more black people than white people. You have no clue just how much things can go south to the point where there isn't even any system in place and all you have left are the actual horrors of war, that the Hollywood movies won't ever show you.
You're blaming Trump for calling for violence, not because he did, but because his audience interprets what he says as such, and at the same time you say things like "all white people are racist" and expect everyone to understand the intricacies of the white privilege theory. In Europe we had those things called "pogroms" that were massacres organized by the usual day-to-day folks, with zero influence over the system. So it wasn't racism according to you, I guess. It's within the realm of possibility that you soon might have the benefit of your white privilege of finding yourself at the receiving end of one of such massacres.
Don't worry they will let you know you're privileged again to explain why you don't get the mental gymnastics required to make sense of this crap.
So much of the stuff I hear groups like BLM say is very far from being true and isn't based on any stats. They often operate very similar to a terror group and do cause a lot of actual terror. Businesses get destroyed, burned down, they attack federal buildings, they attack police, they attack white people who disagree with their ideology, they attack politicians who disagree, they riot outside of politics houses or people who disagree with them, etc. I'm sick of this being deemed somehow "ok" when if a different group did it they would get labeled as a terrorist group. It baffles me how a small group like "Proud Boys" can be labeled as a terror group despite being leagues less dangerous than BLM. The BLM roots caused over $1 Billion in insurance costs alone. If that isn't a terror group I don't know what is.
All such cases of pogroms, ethnic cleansing and so on in recorded human history, happened because of systems that openly, tacitly or implicitly accepted or promoted racist views, laws and sentiments. In some cases the inaction of the system allowed them to happen, in other cases the system directly inflamed them to happen. In others yet, the system (by extension the military and others directly under command of the system) directly perpetrated these acts.
I say the root cause is systemic, you say the root cause is individual. One cannot exist without the other, but I say it all boils down to a systemic issue causing the individual issues.
If you think the current relatively mild upset of the status quo in any way constitutes an "anti-white sentiment", you've been living an extremely sheltered and privileged life.
White men still hold the overwhelming power in the western world, in politics, business and culture.
The fact that minorities are making their voices heard and demanding their rights be respected does not discriminate against white people. Various minorities have been politely asking for their rights to be respected for decades, even centuries at this point. Now they're demanding to be heard, which shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Yes, I was lucky enough to be born after the fall of communism, so I had the privilege that my parents and grandparents didn't have of not struggling through starvation, not being subjected to attempts of erasing my identity and genocides. See, we white people just don't know what real oppression is, which is low black employment and trigger happy cops.
Because of how policed the online world feels with what you say it often feels like it applies in public. However I have yet to work/interact with anyone who seems as far gone as the permanently offended Twitter users seem to be. I swear not a day goes by anymore where I don't here about Twitter going after another person trying to cancel them.
We see people losing their jobs simply for sharing a more conservative view on Twitter. I've seen cases of actors losing jobs for sharing an edgy conservative meme, but than someone sharing almost the identical meme but liberal sided being completely fine.
Nowadays it seems like even things like jobs can simply be determined by how outraged a group of random people feel. Actors lose jobs because people who probably don't even watch the show get upset by a single tweet they made.
The world is starting to not make sense to me and just seems so illogical lately. No matter how factual and objective something is that you say, if it doesn't align with the current politically correct fad people will try to cancel you. People who make perfectly valid and factual claims get shut down by people who just simply call them a "racist" and say "you just don't get it". Instead of trying to help them understand and trying to use facts to logically debate someone they react with emotion and outrage. And then they get dogpilled into submission.
I see why it's hard to find people opposing the current PC culture. As soon as anyone does they get called some "ism" and get cancelled.
You also can’t defend anyone from getting canceled, as that makes you the “ism” as well. You must be anti-whatever“ism” or they will come after you as well.
When I was a little kid I went to a fundamentalist baptist church that worked exactly like this. If a deacon learned that someone wore a skirt above the knee, or listened to a pop song, that person was excommunicated. If anyone then contacted the apostate outside of church, they were excommunicated too. And so on.
Yes exactly. Either you're "with" the mob or you're getting mobbed. The word police and thought police are in full force on sites like Twitter and reddit now.
I pretty much avoid platforms like TikTok and Twitter because of these kinds of things.
I've even seen sections of TikToks with people pretty clearly faking mental disorders for attention. It's honestly kinda sad. I guess I am kinda glad I just missed the explosion of social media in school. I'm sure social media just creates so many more issues in young adults. And the weird things you do when you're young will forever be stored somewhere online.
Christ, I'm going to vent, so I'm sorry but, I'm so sick of this bullsh!t argument.
Eggshells?
If you're with someone you know or you don't know and you make a perceived or actual faux pas in their eyes.
Say ..... "sorry" .... "I didn't know that. Tell me more".
How hard is that?
I try to be pretty inclusive, but I'm nowhere near perfect and you know what, when I might have got it wrong this is what I do. And I'm not special for doing so. It's called interacting like a normal human being with another human being.
And you know what, it opens the space for understanding and debate and the chance to reject if you really believe it is wrong.
And as for you unfollowing podcasts because of mentions of priviedge and so forth ... well ... I wonder why that would be recently. Do you unfollow all topics which make you uncomfortable? Do you complain about cancel culture and then cancel podcasts you don't like?
I'm going to be harsh here because your post is very representative of many I see so maybe it needs to be said.
You feeling like you're being attacked everywhere you go is your problem, not those you think who are doing the attacking.
Unfortunately you did raise some fair points but I'm on HackerNews looking for constructive conversations without sly jabs and insults.
> This is true in most of the world, but the US particularly has an especially racially-charged environment, primarily because due to denial for centuries by people exactly like you to have the conversations about how race plays into society and culture and architecture.
I never denied a racial issue and now you're comparing me to people from centuries ago that committed atrocities on other races.
Flame wars are expressly disallowed on HackerNews and I will be ending this conversation now. I warned you of this rule and asked for a mature conversation. It's unfortunate it couldn't be possible.
One must be able to discuss one another's point of view while being able to point out problematic perspectives of the participants in the discussion.
Ideas aren't abstract. They are molded and adapted by the people that hold them.
I know people on hackernews feel triggered by terms like "implicit bias" and "privilege" and will downvote anything that references these concepts, but it doesn't make them nonexistent, and it's unfortunately a problem in a large percentage of the comment group here.
Listening to a podcast about racial privilege shouldn't make you feel "attacked". And my comment should not have made you feel insulted. Comparing you to people who pretend that racism doesn't exist was a valid summary of your point that you'd prefer to listen to informative content about architecture, science and technology without references to any racial connotations associated with it.
It does NOT mean that I associated you with slave owners, eugenicists, lynchers, or genociders. I didn't even imply that you were racist. (If I had that ALSO wouldn't have placed you in the same category as those people because every belief has a wide spectrum). I mean that. I have no evidence or reason to believe that you are racist and have no interest in insulting you.
But if putting a mirror to your ideology makes you feel attacked because you don't like who it's associated with, the problem isn't the mirror.
HackerNews is becoming an echo chamber of "free speech is being suppressed. Diversity and inclusion is a scam. The world is getting too political. And white people are constantly under attack".
There is only a few of us on here that speak up against this narrative, and we get downvoted for making people feel bad about their beliefs under the guise of "not being curious" or "immature". It's incredibly disappointing that I've been in this industry for >20 years, and the exact same problems exist today as then - technologists who fail to take an interest in the human side of the society they provide technology for.
Foucault and the Postmodern philosophers of the 70s started this, with a new epistemology that ties language use to our perceptions of reality, and also the idea of how marginalized people remain marginalized. You see, the power matrix operates daily and we are all involved. We perpetuate real world problems with problematic language, we are told.
Change the language, change the outcome, came the activists of the 90s and 2000's. This stuff somehow spilled out of literary theory in academia and started becoming a political force for understanding power dynamics. You can get a taste below, where the commenter is comparing black and white concepts, and how we view one as good and another as bad.
Do these folks (like the commenter below) have a point? Yes, sure. But submit your point to the marketplace of ideas instead of trying to force people's hands through censorship. Not everyone has to buy social constructivism. We're allowed to believe that racism has material and economic causes, and changing it has minimally to do with language. So no, don't make me change my git default branch or the way I talk.
I don't claim to be a Foucault scholar but I've heard that claim. The postmodernists were, and to some extent I can sympathize, hostile to grand narratives. Especially given the end of religion and in the middle of the Cold War, who can blame them. Even the attack on Western Enlightenment ideals is at least interesting to discuss
But as you say the whole thing is a giant metanarrative times ten, and these language police types are running over everyone who gets in their way. It's making so many people nervous, I think it has a shelf life. What scares me more is the open embrace of postmodern social theory by corporate America. That will lead to a backlash that makes me even more nervous.
I'm disagreeing with this thread. So I guess prepping for the down votes.
> it trivializes all this historic pain to some inane game of word association
I think addressing one issue does not 'trivialise' everything else. It can be horribly overstated but changing small fry can help provide momentum to change something more significant.
> It's complete bullshit,
It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that? Given changing a metaphor 'black' into a meaning 'block' doesn't seem to me a generally bad idea.
I understand the logic of 'that's just what languages is.' But language changes when people use it differently. It seems to me very reasonable to say let's use this language a little bit less unfortunately.
I'm not suggesting this is 100% the same but re: language change. I remember that time not too many years ago when people would argue that referring to a 'man' or 'him' at work was non-gendered. And those women complaining that we only talked about business men were just being unreasonable. I'm sure there are still places like that but I'm very glad that my co's & clients changed.
> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that?
Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true.
The people who are looking at a word like "blacklist" and thinking it in a negative racial way are the ones that are the problem. They are the ones grasping at straws trying to find things to be offended by. It's a choice people make and it's only offensive because someone chooses to be offended by the word. You have to remember when being offended by words like this it means ignoring the context.
It's just silly is what it is. Language policing is absolutely insane.
> Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true.
It's not just whites but east asians, jews as well. The whole idea derives from the notion that its okay to be racist if its upwards. People associate those groups as being affluent and automatically people think its okay to "punch up".
There are certain groups that we are not supposed to "punch down". There is a rise in anti-semitism, anti-asian, anti-white imho because wealth gap is increasing and people who are on the bottom tend to be not of those groups so they feel its justified and its okay to be racist not even being conscious of their actions and thoughts.
Like many Koreans during the LA riots knew exactly who were looting their stores but its forbidden and "racist" just like the victims of a subset of BLM rioters who decided to loot businesses that can't mention the demographic despite video footage evidence, anecdotes and that overwhelming group behind the protests.
It's getting ridiculous like when I was playing Battlefield and was permanently banned for saying "niggardly use of ammo packs" as the person was not cooperating and refusing to drop ammos.
The whole thing about master branch, master bedroom also has turned North America into a laughing stock. I can't wait to leave this puritannical shithole.
> was permanently banned for saying "niggardly use of ammo packs"
As a non-native english speaker, if I didn't look up the word in dictionary, I would likely assume it was a derivative of that other word. I can see how that would lead to a ban if moderator didn't bother checking, especially if they are moderating 13 year olds mostly.
I guess if you didn't know how to play chess and you heard white moves first, you'd think that was racist too. Especially since you might be inclined to think adults are too busy to play games.
Oh yes, groups like Asians are being heavily targeted yet they get almost zero attention. We even saw the case at Yale where Asian and White students were being doc'ed points on admissions.
There is even research showing how in many different situations Asians actually have many more cases of hate crimes against them compared to black and Hispanic:
> In general, hate crimes are most likely targeting young adults at ages 18–34, male, and local residents in all three groups. Asian American victims however, have a higher chance than African Americans and Hispanics to be victimized in places where they are not local residents (24% vs. 16.8% for African Americans and 16.3% for Hispanics). Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans also have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics).
> With regard to the incident characteristics, Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers (39.2% vs. 30.7% for African Americans and 30.1% for Hispanics), are less likely to be offended in their residence (23.7% vs. 34.4% for African Americans and 29.5% for Hispanics), and are more likely to be targeted at school/college (17% vs. 8.9% for African Americans and 11.2% for Hispanics). The variables of time, weapon use, injury, and substance show similar patterns for the three groups.
I personally do not think movements like BLM are progress inducing at all. In fact I think they do the opposite. I think movements like BLM put the blame on things like white people and police. It's easy for a politician to use the police as a scape-goat and reap in the votes for being a big BLM supporter. But talk doesn't mean anything. I have yet to see many politicians actually do anything to address some of the root causes of problems such nearly 3/4 of black babies being born to an unmarried mother (https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/9429/chad_sc...).
And there is a lot of research showing how huge the single-parent factor is on crime rates:
> States with a lower percentage of single-parent families, on average, will have lower rates of juvenile crime. State-by-state analysis indicates that, in general, a 10 percent increase in the number of children living in single-parent homes (including divorces) accompanies a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
I find it wild how the blame will be put on police over-policing areas rather than the root of the problem which is the higher rates of crime in these areas due to factors like the one above.
Overall it seems like America (and some of Canada) is becoming super sensitive and easily offended. It makes it hard for anyone to ever bring up the serious problems affecting different communities. This data isn't racist, the same effects are seen across racial groups including white people. And this is exactly why I hate seeing the weird anti-white, anti-jew, anti-asian wars that are going on. Because the reality is that this is a problem that can affect anyone who ends up in these kinds of situations.
I'd love to see a politician who focused on the roots of problems rather then focusing on making the loud mouth Twitter users happy. It's sad that often times even just mentioning these kinds of stats would be considered a conservative view and probably would end up being called insults and some Twitter users trying to cancel you.
Agreed 100%. The fact that people are downvoting just shows how ridiculous the double standard is when it comes to racism.
First, racism is not the olympics. Nobody wins. Even when its people "punching up". However, it is quickly becoming acceptable.
Take a look at Western Europe and the the level of anti-semitism from the Muslim, Arab and some local community. It's disgusting. You'd think that Europe would have rooted this shit out after WW2 but that isn't the case. Especially in France, people who lived there for generations are moving to Israel and other countries. When I look at that I think of the struggles of Asian Americans and other groups that haven't gotten as much attention because it doesn't fit the traditional racism.
This forced diversity and "punching up" movement like BLM and ACAB are only increasing animosity towards those represented groups. Many employers who used to hire people from the ghetto can't do it anymore because they've been A) looted B) minimum wage is forcefully raised to unsustainable levels C) refreshed animosity towards those groups as a result of the violence witnessed or experience
Lot of African Americans wonder where this racial tension comes from the Asian & other community are either willfully ignorant or incapable of accepting reality-its not racist to assume a a certain patron will steal or commit violence when the overwhelming demographic is responsible for it. It's called risk management similar to how you don't venture beyond a certain street in some American cities or walk into a favela in Brazil. So already trust was very low towards African Americans and other similar groups, now after BLM, its at an all time low. In fact, it has hurt progress. It's going to be hard for businesses damaged by the abuse of trust from those demographics to ever trust them again and it's going to lead to more underserved ghettos, more poverty, less jobs. This sucks for honest folks of those community who see their opportunities ruined because the uneducated ones suddenly were empowered by an asinine political movement.
People keep using poverty, intergenerational trauma due to slavery but these are just fucking excuses. Asian Americans have gone through all of those things back home from the feudal corrupt agricultural lordship of that only ended around 19th century (but some countries still have militant authoritarian power forcing people in squalor conditions in factories making goods for the West), regional war and poverty. Yet these hardships were never allowed to be used as an excuse to break bad, blame other race groups, and other external factors and NEITHER do successful African Americans.
In fact Charles Barkley put it so eloquently
"We as black people are never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you are black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people,"
"For some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you're not a thug or an idiot, you're not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent, and don't break the law, you're not a good black person. It's a dirty, dark secret in the black community.
"There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don't have success. It's best to knock a successful black person down because they're intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they're successful. It's just typical BS that goes on when you're black, man."
Very good points! These are the same kind of points I have tried to bring up to commenters on Reddit before and I get called racist and told I don't understand. Of course they never try to help me "understand" whatever their "problem" is, but they sure know how to lay out some insults and use their "ism"s.
I think the Malcolm X quote is a very powerful one that accurately represents what is currently going on. I'll quote a snippet of it here but I think the full paragraph is interesting to read:
> “The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man. Let me explain what I mean by the white liberal. In America there is no such thing as Democrat or Republican anymore. In America you have liberals and conservatives. The only people living in the past who think in terms of I’m a Democrat or Republican, is the American Negro. He’s the one that runs around bragging about party affiliation. He’s the one that sticks to the Democrat or sticks to the Republican. But white people are divided into two groups, liberals and conservative. The Democrats who are conservative, vote with the Republicans who are conservative. The Democrats who are liberal vote with the Republicans that are liberal. The white liberal aren’t white people who are for independence, who are moral and ethical in their thinking. They are just a faction of white people that are jockeying for power. The same as the white conservative is a faction of white people that are jockeying for power. They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro, 20 million black people. A political football, a political pawn, an economic football, and economic pawn. A social football, a social pawn. The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro. Getting sympathy of the Negro, getting the allegiance of the Negro, and getting the mind of the Negro. Then the Negro sides with the white liberal, and the white liberal use the Negro against the white conservative.
His quote so accurately describes what is currently happening it's kinda disturbing. I find it hilarious how a well educated and successful black person warns of exactly this kind of thing and yet we still see it happening. We see businesses, liberal politicians, and liberal supporters who spew BLM love everywhere they go and act like such huge supporters of BLM. Yet when Obama was president very little was ever done to help these black communities. Some even argue Trump's policy changes did more to help black people than Obama's changes did. But no liberal would consider that as it doesn't fit the narrative.
It's easy for a politician to make big talk, but when they ignore the stats and the root cause of the problem then it really is just talk and it's useless.
People think that by pointing out things like we have mentioned that we are racist. But in reality we are just able to see the factual/statistics that demonstrate the real issues. And we can see how the politicians and companies utilize racial justice to increase their wealth and power. I personally would love to see all races treated equally, but current BLM movements have not shown any factual progress and have only shown further negative effects such as more incidents of hate crimes.
What people often don't realize is that calling something a ghetto or low income is not racist. Just because one particular area happens to be made up mostly one particular race doesn't make it racist to address that it is a problem. People like to act like police are the problem and that black people are being arrested in higher numbers because of racist police. When in reality black people are often in low income areas and low income areas are well researched to have higher levels of crime. Thus of course there are more arrests in such areas. But I don't know why people need to blame it on race. Why can people not identify that the 1% bleed everybody dry, and particularly take advantage of the poor. Why can we not fight against the root of the problem, why does it always have to be this race against that race?
I just find society now so disturbing with how someone can shit on one race in order to pump up another race and that somehow makes them gain more power/wealth. Someone should not benefit from being racist, yet that is exactly what is happening. People should benefit from actually making change and addressing the real problems.
It's funny because you see people like Jordan Peterson get called and "alt-right nazi" yet I have never seen a video of someone actually making a valid rebuttal to anything he has said. Just listening to videos of him talk you can tell he has a pretty high intelligence level and knows very well what he is talking about. I find in today's society when someone makes valid and factual statements it has become common to just dismiss them by calling them something rather than trying to debate/discuss what they said. Nobody is open to addressing the actual concerns and would rather do hand waving and police people from saying certain words. It's only free speech when it's for a woke liberal movement nowadays.
One day maybe sanity will come back, but I can't see that happening for awhile. It makes me curious if there are any countries that do have some more sanity and operate on a more statistical based playing field rather than an emotional based one.
While I don't agree with Peterson (I think he's a pseudo intellect looking for power grab from the conservative side like Malcom X described) I do agree with Malcom X's accurate analysis and its frightening how much of it rings true
I will have to read/watch more documentaries on Malcom X. It's sad that many African American youth have abandoned the warnings of MLK to not descend into violence and break bad because he knew that would be used as tools for oppression.
Also I don't disagree with BLM in it's entirety I do think it started out of good faith but its evolved into something totally unbecoming.
They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro, 20 million black people. A political football, a political pawn, an economic football, and economic pawn. A social football, a social pawn. The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro. Getting sympathy of the Negro, getting the allegiance of the Negro, and getting the mind of the Negro. Then the Negro sides with the white liberal, and the white liberal use the Negro against the white conservative.
Now you replace the football with other minorities and you have our modern North American political landscape and the whole Carlsen's #MoveForEquality virtue signaling, banning the user of "master" in github and real estate, the whole "amen and awomen" thing, professor getting chased out because Chinese filler word he used sounded like the N word and non-Chinese American students
found it offensive, going to another country as American and demanding the same values and morals from the locals while not bothering to take the time to learn the customs (the constant shaming and review bombing of Japanese Only or Koreans Only establishments in those respective countries because they had unruly foreign patrons who re fuse to learn the language and respect their customs) are all turning North America into something of a foolery. It's being destroyed from within with its cancel culture, placing the individual above society, echo chambers. It's like watching an American remake of the Cultural Revolution that took place in Mao's China.
The virtue signaling industrial complex in North America is getting insane in North America. It is big business and in fact its destroying and moving us away from progress.
I think that one day where everything returns to normal is a distant future and its better off living in another country where they don't tolerate the vilification of critical thinkers.
Why? I don't have anything to prove to you. Anytime I have chosen to engage with someone who has given a response like yours and chosen to give sources and examples I am met with a ignorant response saying something like "you can't be racist towards white people".
It's just not worth it for me to engage like that anymore. How about bringing a discussion to what I said rather than asking for random proof of what I said. Look literally anywhere on the internet and you'll find it pretty easily.
Stuff like that is just one of hundreds of examples. That article is what I'd consider more of a "casual racism" whereas I also see a lot more direct racism as well.
I'd personally rather be in a world where someone doesn't feel a need to specify someone's race before everything. People will add in race when it has no relevance or facts behind it.
I am sure you have heard the phrase "privileged white male" before. I can't even count on both my hands how many times I've been told that. And I'll be told that without the person even knowing my level of privilege, my gender, or my race. When you oppose the current politically correct fad you'll be called racist and people will assume your gender and race and use it as a derogatory/racist statement. It will be used to dismiss and invalidate an opinion.
For me personally my test is often pretty simple. If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? To me they both are racist and just as bad in my mind. Neither is acceptable. Yet in todays society we know which one would be acceptable. As long as it's shitting on a white person or a male you're good to go.
> If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black?
It would depend on the content and context of the opinion itself, no? Why not just ask the dismissing person why they say that? We’ve come to the point where we generalize and characterize instead of understanding, then simply disagreeing.
> Yet in today’s society we know which one would be acceptable. As long as it’s shitting on a white person or a male you’re good to go.
White men are getting shat on but still represent or control nearly all economic and political interests (at least in U.S. and it’s empire). I’m really curious to why you feel this way? It’s not like women and Black people have been getting a pass in exchange. I just think social media has made it easier for white men to be (or feel like) targets of vitriolic, but protected speech. Welcome to the club.
From my perspective, it seems in finance, real estate and politics, going along with the “privileged white male” perception (even if an untrue of the person in question) still seems like the best way to take advantage of markets and institutions. And I suspect that’s why, given a megaphone and platform, everyone else is piling on.
You actually answered this question yourself with your next paragraph :). Currently being racist towards white males gives businesses, influencers, and politicians more power. And I fundamentally disagree with this notion. I do not think shitting on particular groups of people should make someone excel. I think it should show what kind of negative person they are and they should lose not gain.
Some of my problem stems from the fact that these phrases are used to dismiss peoples opinions. I am far from being conservative, and also wouldn't consider myself liberal. I hold many views that fall under both spectrums. Some may even be considered more radical on both ends.
If I made a conservative sided comment online how do you think it would fair? Now if I made a liberal based comment how do you think that would fair in comparison? I think that the liberal ideology would gain me woke points and give me praise. Whereas that conservative view would get shat on, may be called some "ism", and then likely also would be called a "white privileged male". This would of course be used to dismiss the opinion/fact despite how true or accurate it may be. It is also making assumptions on race and gender simply based on a single opinion on a topic.
My main issue is that this kind of thinking creates a divide. It's hard to have a conversation on many websites because people hurl insults and don't care to actually have a constructive conversation. I try and come into a conversation being open-minded. The problem I have faced lately is that I feel like I have been becoming more and more jaded and against the other "side". I really dislike this and have been working to try and avoid doing that. But everytime I hear these kind of rude comments it further affirms my believe while also preventing me from hearing what intelligent people on that "side" actually have to say.
For example, people quite violently oppose Trump and Trump supporters. What doesn't make sense to me is why people would rather attack the group of people instead of trying to share their opinion. If there opinion is based on facts/research/science you'd think they would want to engage with the other side and try and get more people to share their opinion. But instead social media and society lately discourages this. It always has to be them versus us. There is no middle ground. Hell people get called "alt-right" and "nazis" for some pretty tame conservative views. I personally think calling someone a "nazi" is very extreme, yet the word gets thrown around like it means nothing. As a side note I find it quite ironic that these same people using these extreme words also will try to police what words others can use that they deem "offensive".
Definitely agree with the us vs. them mentality that is often perpetuated in the media. Most people are practically not far apart, but people also don't want to confront the past and an us vs. them dichotomy is a lot more accessible.
FWIW I just see shitting on white men as some kind of catharsis for women and people of color. There is a lot more deep pain that needs to be expressed before any real racial healing. Ironically, to your point it may have the opposite of intended effect, but I don't think repressing the emotions that come with unpacking Western society's history of racism is a productive move either.
My main issue is more based on how unproductive it is. The media and social media I believe is tearing apart countries and creating huge divide that continues to grow and grow. I find it disturbing that these companies profit off of creating this divide and continuing to spew anti male and anti white sentiment.
> FWIW I just see shitting on white men as some kind of catharsis for women and people of color.
What's funny is that half the time I hear it, it's a white male shitting on white males. I'll hear a white male podcast host complaining about white males. I often feel like it's less about people doing it to feel better about themselves, it seems more like they are doing it to "look good". Kinda like giving themselves a pat on the back for saying a "woke" line. Or I'll see people like A-list actors shitting on white males despite them being an incredibly privileged individual.
And now we even see females being given political position because of their gender and not necessarily their merit. Our Prime Minister in Canada when he got elected made the cabinet 50/50 male-female. The problem I'm starting to see with this kind of stereotyping is that it is starting to put gender over things like ability.
When a politicians first sentence about why they put someone in a position is "because they were x gender or y race" rather than "Because they had xyz skills and were the most qualified" it points to a problem in my books. In my area we had fire departments that had lower requirements for females than males. However the requirements indicate they are what a firefighter requires to be able to successfully meet the standards of the job and keep themselves, their coworkers, and the public safe. So it seems silly when the that "minimum" to get the job done suddenly gets lowered for a group. It's the same job, but one group doesn't have to meet the same standard? Luckily now I have seen these requirements have shifted to use new testing methodologies that better tests candidates against job requirements and is equal for all genders and ages. I got on a bit of a tangent with this, but my overall point is that because of these norms being pushed by the media often-times the politics and PR becomes more important than having the skills required. This is just one side-effect of many that is caused by this kind of weird PC culture that has been going on.
> If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black?
Context matters... if you are in the position of privilege and saying things that you can only say because of your position. Then I can see why some people would dismiss it.
The difference is: if you try to dismiss someone in a minority position for saying things that would be okay to say in a privileged position. Then you are just doubling down on that privilege.
This isn't about "white privilege" vs "black privilege" this about privilege in general. Really empathy is the answer and understanding where they are coming from will help you not inadvertently offend them.
Not in this context. When "let's not base our judgements on race" is responded with "you're a privileged white male", we're never going to reach any agreement. It's simply not going to happen.
Yeah this is exactly the kind of idea I am getting at. How can someone ever try and understand other peoples point of view if they are told "you don't understand" anytime they try and understand.
Whenever my opinion is dismissed using my race/gender/or perceived privilege it instantly creates divide. It naturally is going to make me feel more correct in my views and more correct avoiding those kinds of people. This is exactly why we see such a huge divide now in America. People are unable to discuss stuff. And this is also probably partially due to the fact that often times people don't actually have any stats to back up what they think. Often times people are just following trends now and copying what their favourite woke influencer does. I find little people I engage with actually grasp what they are talking about and just regurgitate the same lines over and over.
I've got to the point where I barely ever comment on any political sounding reddit post because I know the conversation is going to go nowhere and be filled with name-calling. And I hate that I feel like this. I want to be able to converse with people and try and understand their point of view. But unfortunately I just feel constantly attacked.
Hell I mod a couple subs over there. If I make a comment that sounds conservative leaning upset banned users will go post it on subs I mod on acting like I am a "racist mod". Now I have to delete my reddit history often and use alts a lot more. Nowadays you can barely say anything without offending someone.
Cool, bye, thanks for your worthwhile contribution to the site? I don't get the point of your comment, just leave, I don't need to hear an announcement from you.
You came at me saying "List me some “racist things being said about white people” you have seen on the internet so we can all see...". I provided you an explanation and link and your response is that you're leaving now. If you're that upset by me saying some facts/opinions then maybe avoid comment section, I don't know what to tell you.
I figured that would be the feel of the objection.
Maybe I should be grateful as a white person that that's not the world I find myself in. Happy to pick my variable names.
I can't help but feel that the antagonism here is very similar to the antagonism I mentioned about Gendered language. The anger seemed mostly caused by being surprised by being asked to think about something.
The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it. I'd argue that you are the one who needs to think about it a bit more instead of blindly calling others names and trying to police the grammatically correct words someone uses.
Just because you think and associate something with a negative racial implication when you see a word doesn't mean others are. I personally am able to look at a word and understand the context surrounding the word. I'm able to think about that word and know that calling my git branch a "master" doesn't mean that I am a slave driver and or that I agree with it. I am able to think on my own.
> Just because you think and associate something with a negative racial implication when you see a word doesn't mean others are. I personally am able to look at a word and understand the context surrounding the word.
We also only get change requests for the associations that point in one direction.
It's called "in the black" when you're making a profit. Is anyone trying to get accountants to stop calling it that?
Here are some synonyms my thesaurus lists for "white": blanched, bleached, frosted, pasty, achromatic, bloodless, chalky and ghastly. "White noise" is sound without meaning. "White flag" means to surrender. "White label" means you're too cheap for the name brand.
If it's a problem then it's all a problem.
Or, if we're going to change something, we could stop calling people "white" and "black". Where do I submit the pull request for that?
> If we're going to object, shouldn't we object to all of it?
Unfortunately in todays society people policing words only pretend to care to get their woke bonus points. If it's not a current trending word of the day to hate then it doesn't get any attention.
I find the word policing hilarious because like your example illustrate, there is no logic to the hatred.
In this thread someone is trying to justify not liking the word "blacklist". By that logic "black market" should also be a bad word to use. Yet nobody uses the word "white market", but they do use the word "grey market". So what word here is bad? Is using "black market" bad? Then why would "grey market" be okay? It wouldn't make sense. It means they are for some reason associating black with the race, yet are associating grey with a colour. Logically that doesn't make sense.
Yet if "white market" was a thing I bet there would be trouble. Most scary things in horror movies use darkness to set the mood. A scary creature that is pretty much all black like the Slenderman would not look scary if they were almost all white. To us humans we associate different colours with different things. We also use these words as synonyms for different things.
Like you indicate, white is also used for "negative" things as well.
Overall I just can't follow along with the word policing culture. There is no way someone is going to convince me it is "correct" when it logically and consistently doesn't make sense. My mind can't understand why blackmarket would not be offensive but blacklist would.
> The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it.
Please be a bit more careful. Please don't assume you know what or how much I'm thinking.
I think the situation isn't as binary as you seem to be presenting it. The context of the word is a metaphor. The metaphor is commonly used for 'good versus bad'. This being a common metaphor in western language might not be helpful to some people. It's not difficult to be more explicit or to use a different metaphor.
> you are the one who needs to think about ... I am able to think on my own.
:) You know the classic idea: "I know I'm right, therefore you are either less intelligent or haven't thought hard enough!"?
You know how easy that is to think and why our brain gets us to think that way?
No but that is the problem. It's not really a metaphor if it's a dictionary word that has had it's meaning for centuries. It's a word used to describe something.
What you are doing is using an old historical definition for a word that was used in a different context.
A word I use is meaningless if you exclude the other words around it. You exclude the context in order to feel offended by the word.
And you're using your subconscious racial prejudice to look at a word and feel offended by it. When I look at blacklist I think of the colour black and how the colour is darker. Darkness is commonly a negative thing. Thus if I don't want something I put it on a blacklist. Where as the colour white is the brightest option and is something normally associated with positive.
Do you complain when a movie uses darkness to create a scary atmosphere? Would a Slenderman that is white be as scary as a Slenderman that is black to you? No. Because colour is used to trigger different emotional and psychological responses. But this has nothing to do with race. Nowhere did I need to mention or think about race here.
You're choosing to associate a word with a negative when others who don't have these kinds of racial prejudices are able to look at the words context and instantly understand what it means without ever thinking about a race.
Trust me, your word policing is not going to fix a problem with racism. All it does is reveal how you feel when you see a word.
When I see blacklist I'm not thinking about race. When you see blacklist you are. To me that indicates a racist ideology.
Do you feel using the phrase "black market" is wrong? If so then what about "grey market"? "White market" isn't a word that is used so there is no opposing "positive" colour to "black market". So is the phrase still bad to you?
If somehow black market is okay with you then your logic against blacklist makes no sense. And if black market is not okay with you then it also makes no sense logically because grey market is not based on a race.
Interesting how you associate these words with race yet their origins don't relate to race at all but instead a colour.
I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense.
That said, if you're white in China/India/Kenya/etc... 100% there is a heap of racism directed at you and I feel for you
I believe you 100% can. If someone's opinion based on solid facts is being dismissed by calling them a "privileged white male" I definitely believe that is very racist. They are making assumptions based on negative stereotypes to dismiss what someone is saying. Even if you don't agree that it is racist you should at least agree it is not productive at all in a conversation. The only objective with a comment like that is to be rude and dismiss them. It's not going to bring anything positive to the conversation. It's not going to help the other side understand how they feel or what they think. All it does is create more divide and more hate.
When someone calls me these names without even knowing my race, gender, or status it's pretty rude. Is it going to make me agree with them more? Is it going to make me support any of their causes more? Nope. It's going to increase my dislike for that "side". And if you get hammered with that enough it is going to create hate.
In my opinion I think the current woke landscape is actually creating more racism. I think it is counter-productive.
Does someone who is vegan yelling and screaming blocking you from getting a burger make you want to join their side? Or would it make you want further hate them and want to oppose them? Would a vegan sitting down and having a no namecalling conversation with you be more effective? I would think so. This is the exact same concept.
Also just because someone is a white male for example absolutely does not imply their status. I think that dismisses how much work someone may have put into life to get to where they are. That person doesn't know how hard they worked to get where they may or may not be, yet they are making that assumption.
Someone’s opinion based on solid fact? So is it a fact or an opinion?
If you view their reply as not productive and they view your statement as not productive... then maybe stop having that discussion until you can both bring more empathy to the table.
If you read the conversation I did stop having discussion with them and told them to stop having a discussion with me.
Facts don't always tell a story or explain the "why". Often times you have to form an opinion based on the facts and that is what you're bringing to the table when discussing stuff. I don't see why I need to explain this concept on a site like this.
The "why" can be more facts but it is not always. Sometimes people create opinions based on facts when a causation is not known.
People also create factually incorrect opinions such as implying police are racist towards black people because they are arrested more. This is them deriving an opinion from a fact about incarcerations. Except the causation is already present, which is that lower income areas simply commit more crimes.
Now I'm not trying to argue about whether you think those facts are correct or not, but I'm using it to illustrate a point. A fact can also be wrong. Maybe the fact was derived from bad research. Opinions and facts can go hand and hand together. I don't know why you're trying to be so binary about it.
I also don't understand how this conversation is productive or is useful in anyway? It seems like we are debating meaningless semantics rather than the heart of the issue.
You clearly aren't out to have a productive conversation. You have an axe to grind on this issue.
I'll take your bait though, see how hard you believe these falsehoods.
Yeah, Police in the US (in some states at least) are racist, now I don't mean individuals necessarily, though I'm sure some are, but institutional (dare I say systemic) racism exists in the system. Incarceration rates are a good correlative bit of evidence, arrest rates, court dismissals for whites at a higher rate than blacks... like take your pick. No evidence (or fact) supports your position at all. Happy for your to bring the data to prove me wrong here.
You can hide behind economics if you like and try to argue "poor people commit more crime" - but then how do you explain incarceration rates of blacks given there are more poor white people than poor black people in the US?
You haven't illustrated any point. Just that you have opinions, with little fact, and seem triggered by people referencing white male privilege.
> I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense.
It makes sense for two reasons.
The first is that a huge amount of the "anti-white racism" is directed by "white people" against others nominally in the same group, implying that they aren't actually in the same social group and correspondingly that the targets don't have a majority. As evidence of this, notice that people can be canceled over petty nonsense, e.g. Gina Carano. How could this happen if there was actually a social majority which should nominally be exerting pressure in the opposite direction and winning?
The second is that there are plenty of contexts where the majority doesn't even exist on paper, e.g. only 40% of California is "white" so a "white person" who lives in California is a minority. That state is also the place where a disproportionate amount of the attacks happen. And the same is true of many major US cities, e.g. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston.
The actual power is in the hands of the elites, so a minority. Just because you happen to be a part of the largest demographic group doesn't mean you hold any power. For example, would you say the same thing about Africa back when it was under white rule?
That's stage-2. I.e. after the "minority" becomes the "majority". Then different excuses and "historic" racism is used to justify persecution against a minority.
> > It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist.
> it is not just not intentionally racist -- there is no way any normal person would construe the term 'blacklist' as racist. it is as logically coherent as banning 'black pudding' for racism. it is purely an arbitrary exercise in power, making others submit to show them that they must.
Exactly this. Addressing one issue does not trivialise everything else. 'Addressing' something that isn't actually one of the issues at all[0] trivialises everything else.
0: And there are plenty of actual issues to pick from!
They said banning one was "as logically coherent as" banning the other, not that one was functionally the same as the other. (But since we're on this tangent, the only black pudding I've encountered was (admittedly dark) red, not black. Also revolting, but supposedly that's normal?)
> But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'?
The inverse solution to this stop calling people with darker skin "Black"?
I kind of agree with what you're saying, but also it isn't true:
- Blacktie
- Black friday
- Blacktop
- Back in black
- Orange is the new black
- Men in black
All of those use black in a positive connotation. In my head black/white list has always been a metaphor for light/no light. As in black list can't see, white list can.
In asian Culture white is often associated with the colour of ghosts / the dead... So it'd get awkward if we keep modifying language to suit cultural references especially as English is a global language and while slavery was(is) a global problem it persists only really in the US as a current popular cultural issue.
In replying to you I've convinced myself at least the solution here can't possibly be to change all of the possible references of black to something else... it verges on new speak.
it is purely an arbitrary exercise in power, making others submit to show them that they must. it is obviously trivial, obviously contentious, and changes literally nothing about the material relations between groups. the entire point is to force you to do something stupid to show you that you don't have a choice.
>But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that?
It's not just a language thing. It's an extremely deeply rooted symbolic system. You can't arbitrarily change it, and even if you did... what improvement does shifting the symbols around yield ? That's just increasing the noise to signal ratio.
Even then, isn't the real problematic part assigning elementary colours to skin tones ? Can't you just try to change that instead of contorting the deepest part of a culture on a Procustean bed ?
Peach-pink people aren’t white, and brown people are not black in the first place. Why do self-styled anti-racists not seem to have any problem with that? Why not start there instead of changing the deep symbolism of the colors black and white?
> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'?
No. That's how it's always been in European culture and it doesn't have much to do with race. It's probably true of many other cultures as well, although I can't say for sure.
I think there are two slightly different approaches.
Your point is completely correct. As is the other comment here at about night and day. The lists are frequent. And not unique to European cultures.
But it's also not reasonable to say that in our particular culture, meaning as a political and social context.
Because I'm trying to make a bigger point than just race, I could imagine reading a similar things to what you're writing back in the late-C20 saying that 'Man' has been nongendered for centuries and in many cultures and in all kinds of language. Hi wouldn't disagree.
But then the next step: so women shouldn't have been worried about companies wanting to hire businessmen. That just doesn't seem ok.
So I definitely think that 'Black equals bad, white equals good' Has all kinds of historical significance, non racist links, and would not have been considered weird until very recently. But in our context I'm not offended that it would be something we find alternatives for.
> I think addressing one issue does not 'trivialise' everything else.
Yes, it does. On my Twitter I have "racism" and "race" including many other trendy SJW keywords blocked. The reason is I simply don't have the time and energy to tend to every single accusation of racism or whatever-isms is out there. And most these accusations have nothing to do with racism. It's just some bully has found a new target to harass.
I think you're right, there are far too many people trying to do good and being led astray by the self-righteousness of a few. Not in the sense of being brainwashed or being influenced by some external force - like the religious right - but simply by the fact that they can't see through the nonsense the rest of us are talking about.
> Not in the sense of being brainwashed or being influenced by some external force - like the religious right
Oh I don’t know about that. The “religious left” of today looks, acts, and smells a lot like the religious right of the ‘80’s to me. It’s the same instinct that’s being leveraged in people, just righteousness wrapped in a polka-dot cloth rather than a plaid one. Institutions clearly promote “right-thinking” whether it’s banning the use of words, doing mandatory internal critical race theory sessions, coordinated deplatforming, and let’s not even get started on the soft sciences in schooling and the state of what’s called “news”. The other day I skimmed a headline about a librarian burning their copies of books by Trump and Rush Limbaugh. In some ways the sheer weight of secular institutional support for today’s self-righteousness makes the American church of the eighties look like amateur hour.
It’s tokenism and if anything it is detrimental to actual, concrete, transformative improvement. Malcolm X spoke at length about this going back to the early 1960’s. And it hasn’t changed. Condescending tokenizing is a way to avoid anything that would take effort or energy while comforting the narcissist in a warm blanket of moral righteousness. If you look around you’ll see endless tokenism but not much in terms of effective improvements.
I don’t doubt these hall monitors think they’re doing the “right thing” or being a “good person”. But really they’re only exploiting people for their own benefit.
I'm always surprised when someone goes through more effort to oppose something than to accept the PR and build a little trust. We did this in a codebase of ours recently, it really wasn't a big deal to make the change and I don't understand why everyone throws up a big stink about it.
If I'm going to spend my energy on something it seems like there's bigger things to tackle than pushing back against branch renames.
A blacklist-to-blocklist PR may be OK for you, but a master-to-main PR is not OK at all for many others. Slavery is definite evil, but these PRs for branch renaming just went too far.
As someone not a U.S. citizen, the impact of PC is ridiculously huge. I know slavery and how bad it is. It appeared in my culture, and it is still there in some form too. However, the ENGLISH word "master" means not much to me. It is just a multi-purpose symbol, like many other words. As the meaning being a main branch, why bothering the renaming?
You claim that you are just spending your energy on something else, but in reality you are giving up the right to use your own language and to maintain the definition the meaning of a well-understood and frequently-used word.
Personally I'm pretty glad that most projects don't break backwards compatibility in config files across the globe for flavour-of-the-month American politics, but hey, you do you.
> I'm always surprised when someone goes through more effort to oppose something than to accept the PR and build a little trust.
That is why I just ignore or reject such PRs. I do not believe that enabling it is a good idea. It is not my job to improve their context-awareness either.
> There's no point arguing, though, just drag your heels until they get bored and go off on some other crusade.
Language and culture generally moves in one direction.
Hoping to put the genie back in the bottle on "blacklist" and "master" is like wishing you could go back to the 90's when guys in high school would casually toss out "fag" in relation to each other.
You can disagree, and dig your heels in, and pitch a hissy fit, but the world and society is moving on and leaving you behind.
It's complete bullshit, though. This particular bullshit is awful since it trivializes all this historic pain to some inane game of word association.
There's no point arguing, though, just drag your heels until they get bored and go off on some other crusade.