3 ms·

> Yes there are those issues but I suspect you are not not 100% commenting in good faith here. I don't even know what this accusation is supposed to mean. Cou

> Yes there are those issues but I suspect you are not not 100% commenting in good faith here. I don't even know what this accusation is supposed to mean. Could you spell out what "bad faith" you are imputing here?

neonate 8y ago
I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. It's not true that lobbying the government to enact explicitly white supremacist legislation is "a property the entire society had at the time". > Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true. It's disingenuous at best for the HN headline to read "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" when unions systematically discriminated against working-class Americans of Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and Japanese descent.
  - neonate 8y ago
    Society at the time was dominated by views we would now call white supremacist. That is enough to explain why the unions behaved as you describe. Since you asked above, I think this might be where the feeling of "bad faith" comes in. You're pushing this point harder than it can support and more harshly than you need to. That creates a feeling in the reader of something being off. That's too bad, because it's a good point. I found the information interesting, but because of this extra torque you're putting on it, one ends up responding more to that "off" feeling than to the informative parts of your comment.
NoGravitas 8y ago
Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights. But you're happy to use arguments about race relations or civil rights in order to attack unions – any stick will do to beat a dog. And as we saw in the 2016 Democratic primaries, identity politics, as a legitimately left-wing concern, are a very effective tool for right wingers attacking people promoting left-wing economic policies because they can be used to divide the base. It's possible that you are highly idiosyncratic politically and you actually do sincerely care about both of those things, but that's not the way to bet.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > But you're happy to use arguments about race relations or civil rights in order to attack unions – any stick will do to beat a dog. If you are so committed to the belief that unions are inherently good that you will out-of-hand dismiss anyone pointing out the ways that they have advanced white supremacist structures historically, and accuse them of false-flag concern trolling, you don't get to pretend that you care about "race relations" (ie, racism). > Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights. Thanks for this absurd conclusion, I appreciated the laugh.
  - dang 8y ago
    Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It damages the container here, regardless of how right you are or how wrong someone else is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      I'm not sure I understand - what do you mean by flamewar-style in this case? If you're referring to my tone, I understand that this might sound frustrated. At the same time, I was pointing out and explaining why the HN title specifically (not the article title, as they were different) is offensive to people of several ethnic backgrounds, including my own. And in response, I was met with one person accusing me of speaking in bad faith (with no further comment on what they meant) and another accusing me of being racist and disingenuous for explaining why the submitted title was offensive. So if I sound frustrated by the end and deflect the personal attacks levied at me, please understand it's not a reaction that comes out of nowhere.

neonate 8y ago

I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. It's not true that lobbying the government to enact explicitly white supremacist legislation is "a property the entire society had at the time". > Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true. It's disingenuous at best for the HN headline to read "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" when unions systematically discriminated against working-class Americans of Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and Japanese descent.
- neonate 8y ago
  Society at the time was dominated by views we would now call white supremacist. That is enough to explain why the unions behaved as you describe. Since you asked above, I think this might be where the feeling of "bad faith" comes in. You're pushing this point harder than it can support and more harshly than you need to. That creates a feeling in the reader of something being off. That's too bad, because it's a good point. I found the information interesting, but because of this extra torque you're putting on it, one ends up responding more to that "off" feeling than to the informative parts of your comment.

NoGravitas 8y ago

Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights. But you're happy to use arguments about race relations or civil rights in order to attack unions – any stick will do to beat a dog. And as we saw in the 2016 Democratic primaries, identity politics, as a legitimately left-wing concern, are a very effective tool for right wingers attacking people promoting left-wing economic policies because they can be used to divide the base. It's possible that you are highly idiosyncratic politically and you actually do sincerely care about both of those things, but that's not the way to bet.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> But you're happy to use arguments about race relations or civil rights in order to attack unions – any stick will do to beat a dog. If you are so committed to the belief that unions are inherently good that you will out-of-hand dismiss anyone pointing out the ways that they have advanced white supremacist structures historically, and accuse them of false-flag concern trolling, you don't get to pretend that you care about "race relations" (ie, racism). > Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights. Thanks for this absurd conclusion, I appreciated the laugh.
- dang 8y ago
  Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It damages the container here, regardless of how right you are or how wrong someone else is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    I'm not sure I understand - what do you mean by flamewar-style in this case? If you're referring to my tone, I understand that this might sound frustrated. At the same time, I was pointing out and explaining why the HN title specifically (not the article title, as they were different) is offensive to people of several ethnic backgrounds, including my own. And in response, I was met with one person accusing me of speaking in bad faith (with no further comment on what they meant) and another accusing me of being racist and disingenuous for explaining why the submitted title was offensive. So if I sound frustrated by the end and deflect the personal attacks levied at me, please understand it's not a reaction that comes out of nowhere.