5 ms·

As an aside, you're painting with some pretty broad brushes here labelling all of those people as white supremacists. There is certainly some overlap there, bu

As an aside, you're painting with some pretty broad brushes here labelling all of those people as white supremacists. There is certainly some overlap there, but the numbers of white supremacists are small and the numbers of people with an affinity for some of those listed is much larger and not exclusively white (or male). And in the case of most of that list, not even exclusively right-wing.

tptacek 8y ago
What makes you think the number of white supremacists is small? The definition of "white supremacist" isn't "stupid looking shield in one hand and tiki torch in the other". Everybody who believes that African Americans are on average less intelligent than "white" people is, prima facie, a white supremacist; that's what the term means. There's been an effort (online) in the last year to shift the semantics of the term, so that "white supremacists" might refer exclusively to performative white supremacists. That's pretty Orwellian, and there's no evidence it's catching on. I don't see a reason to dignify the effort. The term means what it obviously means.
- busterarm 8y ago
  You actually missed one half of the definition. Like, the accepted definition. The part that adds ", and that white people should be dominant over other races". No, there aren't really many people that believe that anymore, to the point that it's enshrined in our law. For longer than you've been alive, even. Being a bigot does not de facto make you a white supremacist. The term itself is _extremely_ loaded and automatically implies certain forms of political action. It's starting to get really difficult to take you seriously anymore, guy. Though I guess that's what I should expect from someone who embraces being a sockpuppet.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. We've already had to warn you about breaking the site guidelines; please don't keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - busterarm 8y ago
      Could you please clarify here, Dan? I don't believe I'm making comments about his person at all but about his statements and style of discourse. We aren't anonymous posters here. I find the content of his statements consistently divorced from reality and he also operates sockpuppet.org as his personal website. I'm not calling him something that he doesn't already clearly embrace. I won't disagree that my comment was hostile, but so is disagreeing with someone based on his distinct, personal interpretation of the meaning of words. So is saying that anyone who is even slightly a bigot is also a white supremacist. If you have to ban me for this, Dan, I'll just take it. If we can't have meta discussions about how we discuss topics here, then it's just a popularity contest and "harmony" is more important than ideas. What's the point?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Everybody who believes that African Americans are on average less intelligent than "white" people is, prima facie, a white supremacist; This far, you might be arguably correct in that prima facie refers, essentially, to a conclusion that is justified by a piece of evidence unless rebutted by some other counterevidence. But the manner you use it here suggests that your intent was to use the sense of ipso facto rather than merely prima facie, and that's clearly not correct: it is quite possible to think that the are on-average ability differences between races with whites being advantaged over blacks (or some other race, or even most advantaged of all races) in one or more dimensions without being a white supremacist. > that's what the term means. Even to the extent that your prima facie claim in the foregoing independent clause could be argued to be correct, this little tag is not. “White supremacist” does not mean “person who believes that African Americans are on average less intelligent than ‘white’ people.” It means [0] ”a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races”. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacist https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremaci...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I don't know how far into this you want to go, but no, I don't think it's possible to think that there are biologically determined on-average cognitive ability differences between "whites" and "black people" without being a white supremacist. I recognize that there is a trope suggesting you're not a white supremacist unless you want there to be a biologically determined difference. But, no, that just makes you a reluctant white supremacist. Similarly: there are people who believe it can't possibly be white supremacy to simply recognize science that suggests those differences. Nope, that makes you a scientific white supremacist. What if the differences are very minor? Then you're a mild white supremacist. This bothers people, and I guess it's heartening that it does, but I think most of us are aware that the most pernicious and dangerous form of white supremacy isn't the tiki torch army, but rather the subtle biases and self-dealing that work to keep difference "races" locked into different socioeconomic status brackets. The term means what it means. People should stop looking for loopholes.
    - 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

What makes you think the number of white supremacists is small? The definition of "white supremacist" isn't "stupid looking shield in one hand and tiki torch in the other". Everybody who believes that African Americans are on average less intelligent than "white" people is, prima facie, a white supremacist; that's what the term means. There's been an effort (online) in the last year to shift the semantics of the term, so that "white supremacists" might refer exclusively to performative white supremacists. That's pretty Orwellian, and there's no evidence it's catching on. I don't see a reason to dignify the effort. The term means what it obviously means.

busterarm 8y ago
You actually missed one half of the definition. Like, the accepted definition. The part that adds ", and that white people should be dominant over other races". No, there aren't really many people that believe that anymore, to the point that it's enshrined in our law. For longer than you've been alive, even. Being a bigot does not de facto make you a white supremacist. The term itself is _extremely_ loaded and automatically implies certain forms of political action. It's starting to get really difficult to take you seriously anymore, guy. Though I guess that's what I should expect from someone who embraces being a sockpuppet.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. We've already had to warn you about breaking the site guidelines; please don't keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - busterarm 8y ago
    Could you please clarify here, Dan? I don't believe I'm making comments about his person at all but about his statements and style of discourse. We aren't anonymous posters here. I find the content of his statements consistently divorced from reality and he also operates sockpuppet.org as his personal website. I'm not calling him something that he doesn't already clearly embrace. I won't disagree that my comment was hostile, but so is disagreeing with someone based on his distinct, personal interpretation of the meaning of words. So is saying that anyone who is even slightly a bigot is also a white supremacist. If you have to ban me for this, Dan, I'll just take it. If we can't have meta discussions about how we discuss topics here, then it's just a popularity contest and "harmony" is more important than ideas. What's the point?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Everybody who believes that African Americans are on average less intelligent than "white" people is, prima facie, a white supremacist; This far, you might be arguably correct in that prima facie refers, essentially, to a conclusion that is justified by a piece of evidence unless rebutted by some other counterevidence. But the manner you use it here suggests that your intent was to use the sense of ipso facto rather than merely prima facie, and that's clearly not correct: it is quite possible to think that the are on-average ability differences between races with whites being advantaged over blacks (or some other race, or even most advantaged of all races) in one or more dimensions without being a white supremacist. > that's what the term means. Even to the extent that your prima facie claim in the foregoing independent clause could be argued to be correct, this little tag is not. “White supremacist” does not mean “person who believes that African Americans are on average less intelligent than ‘white’ people.” It means [0] ”a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races”. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacist https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremaci...
- tptacek 8y ago
  I don't know how far into this you want to go, but no, I don't think it's possible to think that there are biologically determined on-average cognitive ability differences between "whites" and "black people" without being a white supremacist. I recognize that there is a trope suggesting you're not a white supremacist unless you want there to be a biologically determined difference. But, no, that just makes you a reluctant white supremacist. Similarly: there are people who believe it can't possibly be white supremacy to simply recognize science that suggests those differences. Nope, that makes you a scientific white supremacist. What if the differences are very minor? Then you're a mild white supremacist. This bothers people, and I guess it's heartening that it does, but I think most of us are aware that the most pernicious and dangerous form of white supremacy isn't the tiki torch army, but rather the subtle biases and self-dealing that work to keep difference "races" locked into different socioeconomic status brackets. The term means what it means. People should stop looking for loopholes.
  - 8y ago