3 ms·

This is wrong and have nothing to do with "successful white people" and quite frankly your remark is racist. Their ancestors were hunters and this gave them pu

This is wrong and have nothing to do with "successful white people" and quite frankly your remark is racist. Their ancestors were hunters and this gave them purpose in life as well as good diet which led to much happier life. Now they have nothing to do except watch TV and sit on their couch and eat bad food. Of course they are unhappy, you would be too.

toyg 10y ago
Bad food and TV didn't materialise out of thin air, they are part and parcel of that cultural bombing I was talking about. I struggle to see how it's racist to admit that white people traditionally own and define the mainstream culture of places like Denmark and Canada. You cannot fix a problem if you don't admit you have one; the main problem here is that modern mainstream white capitalist culture (to which I belong and partake) might not necessarily suit all environments and all communities, and we have to find ways around that. EDIT: note that I don't have anything against "successful white people", I'm just pointing out that our culture constantly sends out messages saying you should be like (some of) them, which might not be the best course of action in all situations. Zuck himself does not tell the media to glorify him, but they do it anyway; he might not be the best role model for the average not-white, not-male, not-Californian, not-Stanford-attending, not-programming-passionate person though, and when a lot of these not-zuck-like people see the Zuck-worshiping, they get a metaphorical kick in the teeth. Same for Hollywood celebs and so on. This is what I meant.
- haberman 10y ago
  I can't speak to the Danish and Canadian media, but the American media also glorify Barack Obama, Malala Yousafzai, Amit Singhal, Russell Wilson, Chris Rock, the Dalai Lama, Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, Prince, etc. Also the only major motion picture depicting Zuck makes him look like kind of an asshole.
warfangle 10y ago
Racism requires oppression, as it's a systematic way of oppression based on race. Are Inuits (or gp's comment) coming from a place of power where they can oppress white people? No? Then that comment wasn't racist, fuckwad.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Redefining words like Racism is a common tactic of social activists to create an in-group and "all the other idiots". I reject that artificial redefinition. We all understand racism. Its when somebody puts somebody else down based solely on their race. That's it. The other stuff has other names, like "institutional racism" for instance.
  - warfangle 10y ago
    Getting upset about the definition of words when they don't fit your privileged view of the world is a common tactic of those in places of privilege when equality seems to attack their base of privilege. You don't understand racism at all. That's not even the dictionary definition of it. Any of the dictionary definitions of it. Racism is believing that one race is superior and basing the oppression of other races upon that belief. Thus, the oppressed cannot be racist. They can be intolerant or bigoted or any of many other things; but they cannot be racist because they are not coming from a position of privilege to even be able to oppress.
    - toyg 10y ago
      I'll bite: it seems like you don't understand racism at all, either. A society split in "race-based" groups that co-operate towards common goals on an equal basis is still "racist". There are no oppressed and no oppressors, but the concept of "race" is still built-in and hence produces a racist society. (For the record, there are several examples of this sort of approach in history, some even ongoing.) The only way to avoid this trap is to reject the concept of "race" as anything that you can meaningfully define. This has to be done by everyone, be them oppressed or otherwise.
    - jpreiland 10y ago
      >redefine a word >expect others to follow suit >"win" arguments when they don't understand your new terminology Let me try You don't understand oppression at all. Oppression is when you put flower petals between pages of a book to flatten them. Thus, humans cannot be oppressed. is it working?
jessaustin 10y ago
So you completely agree with parent comment except you think it's "racist"?
dang 10y ago
You ruined this thread by tossing in an inflammatory "racist", thereby knocking it off-topic and making it a flamewar at the same time. Please don't do this on Hacker News. Pretty much the worst thing a comment can do here is take a specific discussion about something factual and turn it into a generic one about something ideological. I'm sure you didn't mean to produce that undesired result, but because the mechanism is predictable, it can and should be scrupulously avoided. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11548148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11548148 and marked it off-topic.

toyg 10y ago

Bad food and TV didn't materialise out of thin air, they are part and parcel of that cultural bombing I was talking about. I struggle to see how it's racist to admit that white people traditionally own and define the mainstream culture of places like Denmark and Canada. You cannot fix a problem if you don't admit you have one; the main problem here is that modern mainstream white capitalist culture (to which I belong and partake) might not necessarily suit all environments and all communities, and we have to find ways around that. EDIT: note that I don't have anything against "successful white people", I'm just pointing out that our culture constantly sends out messages saying you should be like (some of) them, which might not be the best course of action in all situations. Zuck himself does not tell the media to glorify him, but they do it anyway; he might not be the best role model for the average not-white, not-male, not-Californian, not-Stanford-attending, not-programming-passionate person though, and when a lot of these not-zuck-like people see the Zuck-worshiping, they get a metaphorical kick in the teeth. Same for Hollywood celebs and so on. This is what I meant.

haberman 10y ago
I can't speak to the Danish and Canadian media, but the American media also glorify Barack Obama, Malala Yousafzai, Amit Singhal, Russell Wilson, Chris Rock, the Dalai Lama, Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, Prince, etc. Also the only major motion picture depicting Zuck makes him look like kind of an asshole.

warfangle 10y ago

Racism requires oppression, as it's a systematic way of oppression based on race. Are Inuits (or gp's comment) coming from a place of power where they can oppress white people? No? Then that comment wasn't racist, fuckwad.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Redefining words like Racism is a common tactic of social activists to create an in-group and "all the other idiots". I reject that artificial redefinition. We all understand racism. Its when somebody puts somebody else down based solely on their race. That's it. The other stuff has other names, like "institutional racism" for instance.
- warfangle 10y ago
  Getting upset about the definition of words when they don't fit your privileged view of the world is a common tactic of those in places of privilege when equality seems to attack their base of privilege. You don't understand racism at all. That's not even the dictionary definition of it. Any of the dictionary definitions of it. Racism is believing that one race is superior and basing the oppression of other races upon that belief. Thus, the oppressed cannot be racist. They can be intolerant or bigoted or any of many other things; but they cannot be racist because they are not coming from a position of privilege to even be able to oppress.
  - toyg 10y ago
    I'll bite: it seems like you don't understand racism at all, either. A society split in "race-based" groups that co-operate towards common goals on an equal basis is still "racist". There are no oppressed and no oppressors, but the concept of "race" is still built-in and hence produces a racist society. (For the record, there are several examples of this sort of approach in history, some even ongoing.) The only way to avoid this trap is to reject the concept of "race" as anything that you can meaningfully define. This has to be done by everyone, be them oppressed or otherwise.
  - jpreiland 10y ago
    >redefine a word >expect others to follow suit >"win" arguments when they don't understand your new terminology Let me try You don't understand oppression at all. Oppression is when you put flower petals between pages of a book to flatten them. Thus, humans cannot be oppressed. is it working?

jessaustin 10y ago

So you completely agree with parent comment except you think it's "racist"?

dang 10y ago

You ruined this thread by tossing in an inflammatory "racist", thereby knocking it off-topic and making it a flamewar at the same time. Please don't do this on Hacker News. Pretty much the worst thing a comment can do here is take a specific discussion about something factual and turn it into a generic one about something ideological. I'm sure you didn't mean to produce that undesired result, but because the mechanism is predictable, it can and should be scrupulously avoided. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11548148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11548148 and marked it off-topic.