5 ms·

Literally racism

luckydata 7y ago
It is literally not. Here is a definition of racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I don't believe Chinese nationals are inferior in any way to me. I do believe they are (currently) the enemy of western democracies and more specifically to the country where I currently reside.
- jimclegg 7y ago
  Intellectualizing racism for the sake of obfuscation is very common in Western history, I hope we aren't falling into the same habits again.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Note that you're just saying a generality, without addressing the comment you're replying to at all. Sweeping atrocities under the rug is also very common, then trying to project one's own failure to speak out against them as some kind of moral failing of those who do. > Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault. In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history. -- Noam Chomsky Just the fact that this discussion was barely penalized, is bursting with accusations of "hysteria" (that also has tradition) and "racism" and "flamebait", while these for example were very harshly penalized, speaks volumes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315905 I think grotesque is a good word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsoImQfVsO4&t=33m27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsoImQfVsO4&t=33m27s > One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" This is exactly the tactic, and the pattern in hundreds of HN discussions: make accusations one doesn't need to prove, and the accused cannot disprove. "You just say this because you hate X", or "you don't say this because you think it's true, and despite it possibly offending someone, no... this is flamebait, my inability to address your argument on its merits is actually your intention". But of course it's verboten to be offended by any of that.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      "dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners". > He watched on. Now that he had changed sides to the SS, he admired the strength of Fritz and the police man even more. He finally had left the camp of those who were wretched enough to let themselves be bludgeoned like that. He was glad to have made his choice. He did no longer have to fear the suspicion of the masters. He was on the side of good. The beatings the men received hardened his consciousness to embody good. One cannot receive beatings and be right, one cannot be dirty, eat garbage and be right. and > They know what they are doing, they know what is done to us. -- Robert Antelme, "The human race"
      - dang 7y ago
        This is far off topic and well into the generic ideological bucket that we don't want on HN. Would you please stop posting like this?
        PavlovsCat 7y ago
        Well, it's a comment on the notion that action, be that votes, sophistry, lies, censorship, violence -- which all are in a bucket separate from discussion -- can bolster an argument. But sure, I will. Not pointing out the dual use of votes and flags because it's not allowed is something I can live with.

Literally racism

It is literally not. Here is a definition of racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I don't believe Chinese nationals are inferior in any way to me. I do believe they are (currently) the enemy of western democracies and more specifically to the country where I currently reside.

jimclegg 7y ago
Intellectualizing racism for the sake of obfuscation is very common in Western history, I hope we aren't falling into the same habits again.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  Note that you're just saying a generality, without addressing the comment you're replying to at all. Sweeping atrocities under the rug is also very common, then trying to project one's own failure to speak out against them as some kind of moral failing of those who do. > Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault. In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history. -- Noam Chomsky Just the fact that this discussion was barely penalized, is bursting with accusations of "hysteria" (that also has tradition) and "racism" and "flamebait", while these for example were very harshly penalized, speaks volumes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315905 I think grotesque is a good word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsoImQfVsO4&t=33m27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsoImQfVsO4&t=33m27s > One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" This is exactly the tactic, and the pattern in hundreds of HN discussions: make accusations one doesn't need to prove, and the accused cannot disprove. "You just say this because you hate X", or "you don't say this because you think it's true, and despite it possibly offending someone, no... this is flamebait, my inability to address your argument on its merits is actually your intention". But of course it's verboten to be offended by any of that.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    "dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners". > He watched on. Now that he had changed sides to the SS, he admired the strength of Fritz and the police man even more. He finally had left the camp of those who were wretched enough to let themselves be bludgeoned like that. He was glad to have made his choice. He did no longer have to fear the suspicion of the masters. He was on the side of good. The beatings the men received hardened his consciousness to embody good. One cannot receive beatings and be right, one cannot be dirty, eat garbage and be right. and > They know what they are doing, they know what is done to us. -- Robert Antelme, "The human race"
    - dang 7y ago
      This is far off topic and well into the generic ideological bucket that we don't want on HN. Would you please stop posting like this?
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        Well, it's a comment on the notion that action, be that votes, sophistry, lies, censorship, violence -- which all are in a bucket separate from discussion -- can bolster an argument. But sure, I will. Not pointing out the dual use of votes and flags because it's not allowed is something I can live with.