13 ms·

Straight to Nazis, huh? I'm not talking blood and soil here. I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. A

Straight to Nazis, huh? I'm not talking blood and soil here. I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. But no one's saying (well, not anyone on HN, anyway, and not most people on Tumblr) that white people or me should be persecuted. Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. How you get to Nazis from that, I don't know.

julianmarq 9y ago
> I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. Still arguing about complicity just out of existence. Last time I'm replying to you because you won't understand, but at least now my comment is just as visible as yours. > And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. Again, calling out unfair benefits is not bad. Attacking the people directly based on their race and sex is. But you do you and keep pretending I'm doing the first, it's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of your narrative after all. > Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. Yeah, no, this isn't what's being argued here, again. Nobody should have inherent advantages over anyone else, that's a non-starter, it's obvious. What I and the others you replied to here is calling out is a direct snub on a group of people because of their race and sex. If you don't see that as racism or sexism (or are selectively pretending that those aren't bad things) doesn't matter: It is racism/sexism and they're bad things.
- selllikesybok 9y ago
  But how is saying "we want a more diverse group" a snub?
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    Postponing it because they aren't "diverse" enough is a snub.
    - selllikesybok 9y ago
      Again, how so?
      - julianmarq 9y ago
        Let's imagine someone organizes a conference and every single speaker ends up being a black woman. The organizers proceed to postpone it because it isn't "diverse" enough. Now you'll tell me that you'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
        selllikesybok 9y ago
        Let me know if that ever actually happens. I'd be happy to discuss when it does.
        julianmarq 9y ago
        > Let me know if that ever actually happens. As I knew, this is what you hope starts happening. So don't pretend that what you want is diversity, it was patently obvious from your first statement that it isn't what you want, and your backpedaling in every single reply didn't work. Glad you're back to your original intent, though, it's honest.
        selllikesybok 9y ago
        There have been many open submission conferences with speakers who are all male. And all white. And a few both. Are there any open submission conferences which have had speakers who are all WoC? It seems like a distraction to discuss hypothetical diversity problems that don't exist, instead of real ones that do.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

julianmarq 9y ago

> I'm talking about benefiting from structural inequalities that favor certain groups over others. Still arguing about complicity just out of existence. Last time I'm replying to you because you won't understand, but at least now my comment is just as visible as yours. > And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity. Again, calling out unfair benefits is not bad. Attacking the people directly based on their race and sex is. But you do you and keep pretending I'm doing the first, it's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of your narrative after all. > Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others. Yeah, no, this isn't what's being argued here, again. Nobody should have inherent advantages over anyone else, that's a non-starter, it's obvious. What I and the others you replied to here is calling out is a direct snub on a group of people because of their race and sex. If you don't see that as racism or sexism (or are selectively pretending that those aren't bad things) doesn't matter: It is racism/sexism and they're bad things.

selllikesybok 9y ago
But how is saying "we want a more diverse group" a snub?
- julianmarq 9y ago
  Postponing it because they aren't "diverse" enough is a snub.
  - selllikesybok 9y ago
    Again, how so?
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      Let's imagine someone organizes a conference and every single speaker ends up being a black woman. The organizers proceed to postpone it because it isn't "diverse" enough. Now you'll tell me that you'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
      - selllikesybok 9y ago
        Let me know if that ever actually happens. I'd be happy to discuss when it does.
        julianmarq 9y ago
        > Let me know if that ever actually happens. As I knew, this is what you hope starts happening. So don't pretend that what you want is diversity, it was patently obvious from your first statement that it isn't what you want, and your backpedaling in every single reply didn't work. Glad you're back to your original intent, though, it's honest.
        selllikesybok 9y ago
        There have been many open submission conferences with speakers who are all male. And all white. And a few both. Are there any open submission conferences which have had speakers who are all WoC? It seems like a distraction to discuss hypothetical diversity problems that don't exist, instead of real ones that do.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]