4 ms·

I feel like we were doing fairly well moving towards a single 'human tribe' for the first part of my life, and that 'Racist' was such a powerful label because i

I feel like we were doing fairly well moving towards a single 'human tribe' for the first part of my life, and that 'Racist' was such a powerful label because it was tantamount to putting the human tribe secondary to some sub-group. I'm not sure how or why, but it feels as though a large swathe of the intellectual class betrayed the project by changing the definition of racism from something an individual did, and could thereby be considered a traitor to the 'human' tribe, to something one could be guilty of merely by benefiting from when someone else betrayed the human tribe. If one person is a racist, everyone he favours is also guilty of racism under the new definition. No tribe could hold together under such conditions.

cal5k 6y ago
Well-said. That's why I believe it will lead to a backlash if left unchecked. History suggests that forcing people to suddenly view themselves in stark racial terms is a recipe for disaster.
komali2 6y ago
> to something one could be guilty of merely by benefiting from when someone else betrayed the human tribe. You may not be aware but this is a common alt-right strawman argument opposed to Black Lives Matter. The idea that all white people are vulnerable of being accused of racism simply because of their privilege. It's incorrect, and a strawman of the actual position, which is that silence aids the status quo. "There comes a time when silence is betrayal." ""First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;"
- cal5k 6y ago
  > You may not be aware but this is a common alt-right strawman argument opposed to Black Lives Matter. Just argue the point. This kind of insidious smear-by-association is what I despise so much about the current state of public discourse.
  - lilactown 6y ago
    I also despise the current state of public discourse for the very reason that stating that at the beginning of their post is necessary. It's impossible for us to know if the poster of the original point is posting in good faith or not (such is the nature of the internet). By noting that it is a common alt-right strawman, and engaging with it anyway, it can help readers understand the meta of discourse that leads many other people to decide _NOT_ to engage with the argument. The core problem with the discourse that is frustrating us is that people leverage these viewpoints not to generate discussion and mutual learning, but to try and terminate discussion in order to win people over to their side. The way that the original point terminates discussion is tricky. Feeling "guilty by association" is a perfectly valid feeling. But the implication is, "things that make me feel guilty are not correct", and that can easily terminate a discussion because we have to untangle that first. Continuing to post in support of the thing that makes someone feel bad is seen as callous, which is why I believe the replier speaking up for BLM is being downvoted. They are ignoring the OPs feelings, which _may_ be valid and real, but it can just as easily be an attempt to redirect the discussion. Ultimately, feelings of guilt is not something that can really be processed over posts on social media, which is why I wish that the greater HN community would engage less in upvoting "peoples tactics made me feel bad" and more in productive discussion of how to do better than the status quo when it came to racial justice and other social topics.
    - komali2 6y ago
      I try to be as generous and good faith as I can, but I'm not the best at it. I tend to point out talking points when I see them because I waste a lot of time arguing on the internet, and so I time and time again will watch a talking head say some red herring or strawman, watch it propagate through Twitter and Reddit, and eventually end up here almost completely unchanged. It seems important to point these things out when I see them. I want to challenge why someone believes what they believe or is saying what they say. Is "black lives matter means white lives don't matter" what you really believe, or is it something you heard and sounded true to you and thus became embedded in your worldview before you had a chance to really consider the implications there? Sometimes it feels like public figures, verified Twitter accounts, and massively upvoted comments on Reddit are putting weapons onto a rack in the colliseum of "internet debate," and half the time I'm just finding myself face to face with the exact same sword fifty other people have swung at me... So I just jab back with the exact same spear I've used fifty times before. At that point it doesn't even matter who's wielding the weapon, just that the weapons are endlessly crossing eachother.
- wrycoder 6y ago
  Disengagement is a right, just as is engagement. Silence does not necessarily imply disagreement, but can serve to damp overshooting reactions. Order is not orthogonal to justice. Disagreement with methods should be fine, so long as a useful alternate path to the goal is offered.

cal5k 6y ago

Well-said. That's why I believe it will lead to a backlash if left unchecked. History suggests that forcing people to suddenly view themselves in stark racial terms is a recipe for disaster.

komali2 6y ago

> to something one could be guilty of merely by benefiting from when someone else betrayed the human tribe. You may not be aware but this is a common alt-right strawman argument opposed to Black Lives Matter. The idea that all white people are vulnerable of being accused of racism simply because of their privilege. It's incorrect, and a strawman of the actual position, which is that silence aids the status quo. "There comes a time when silence is betrayal." ""First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;"

cal5k 6y ago
> You may not be aware but this is a common alt-right strawman argument opposed to Black Lives Matter. Just argue the point. This kind of insidious smear-by-association is what I despise so much about the current state of public discourse.
- lilactown 6y ago
  I also despise the current state of public discourse for the very reason that stating that at the beginning of their post is necessary. It's impossible for us to know if the poster of the original point is posting in good faith or not (such is the nature of the internet). By noting that it is a common alt-right strawman, and engaging with it anyway, it can help readers understand the meta of discourse that leads many other people to decide _NOT_ to engage with the argument. The core problem with the discourse that is frustrating us is that people leverage these viewpoints not to generate discussion and mutual learning, but to try and terminate discussion in order to win people over to their side. The way that the original point terminates discussion is tricky. Feeling "guilty by association" is a perfectly valid feeling. But the implication is, "things that make me feel guilty are not correct", and that can easily terminate a discussion because we have to untangle that first. Continuing to post in support of the thing that makes someone feel bad is seen as callous, which is why I believe the replier speaking up for BLM is being downvoted. They are ignoring the OPs feelings, which _may_ be valid and real, but it can just as easily be an attempt to redirect the discussion. Ultimately, feelings of guilt is not something that can really be processed over posts on social media, which is why I wish that the greater HN community would engage less in upvoting "peoples tactics made me feel bad" and more in productive discussion of how to do better than the status quo when it came to racial justice and other social topics.
  - komali2 6y ago
    I try to be as generous and good faith as I can, but I'm not the best at it. I tend to point out talking points when I see them because I waste a lot of time arguing on the internet, and so I time and time again will watch a talking head say some red herring or strawman, watch it propagate through Twitter and Reddit, and eventually end up here almost completely unchanged. It seems important to point these things out when I see them. I want to challenge why someone believes what they believe or is saying what they say. Is "black lives matter means white lives don't matter" what you really believe, or is it something you heard and sounded true to you and thus became embedded in your worldview before you had a chance to really consider the implications there? Sometimes it feels like public figures, verified Twitter accounts, and massively upvoted comments on Reddit are putting weapons onto a rack in the colliseum of "internet debate," and half the time I'm just finding myself face to face with the exact same sword fifty other people have swung at me... So I just jab back with the exact same spear I've used fifty times before. At that point it doesn't even matter who's wielding the weapon, just that the weapons are endlessly crossing eachother.
wrycoder 6y ago
Disengagement is a right, just as is engagement. Silence does not necessarily imply disagreement, but can serve to damp overshooting reactions. Order is not orthogonal to justice. Disagreement with methods should be fine, so long as a useful alternate path to the goal is offered.