3 ms·

"> Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher[1], VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Goog

"> Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher[1], VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Google Play Store, withdrew from a scheduled talk he was set to give in August at the Black Hat USA 2020 security conference." it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this. With entitled I mean, finished university working at a top position in a large company on a 6 figure salary. It's never the worker POC who is slaving away in an Amazon warehouse or working 3 jobs in the gig economy to feed their family. It's just a cheap way to get your name in the news and to me (personally) these people are very misguided. They're well read no doubt but nevertheless wrong. Guess it's easier as an exec at a multinational company to pander to this rather than tackling their transfer-pricing crimes they commit with their Double Irish / Dutch Sandwiches[2]. Banning language like this is a very dangerous path: “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” -- George Orwell "1984" [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/davekleidermacher/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_and_the_Men_Who_Stole_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...

rbecker 6y ago
> it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this Judging by the name, David Kleidermacher is Jewish. Edit: Flagged? But it was the parent post that brought up race, yet it remains unflagged. Why was that instance OK, but this isn't?
tdeck 6y ago
Whether the term "black hat" perpetuates racial prejudices or not (I'm unconvinced), I think this kind of comment has the potential to take the whole thread down the wrong path. It asserts (without evidence) that no working-class Black people care about this¹, then argues that the author is "no doubt nevertheless wrong", and then quotes a work of fiction without any explanation of why the analogy is apt. Why is it that every time there's a discussion about language like this people try to shut it down with hyperbolic comparisons to totalitarianism rather than actually engaging? We can have these kinds of discussions while also pushing companies to put their money where their mouth is. ¹ Could it be instead that when working-class Black people complain about this they don't get national press?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  People make hyperbolic comparisons because the previous hyperbolic comparisons keep coming true. A decade or two ago, "activists want us to examine all black-colored things to make sure they're not racist" was a ridiculous hyperbolic claim.
  - tdeck 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, that's a bad-faith misrepresentation of the position. The position is more like "we've got lots of expressions that associate `black` with `bad`, and maybe we should move away from them in a professional context." The claim isn't that the origin of these terms itself is necessarily racist (e.g. a black sheep is a sheep whose wool can't be dyed), only that their use helps to an unconscious climate of anti-blackness. Again, I'm not really convinced that this is true, but it's not the same as saying we should examine every "black-colored thing" to make sure it's not racist. And crucially, I'm not irrationally upset over the mere suggestion that we should rethink certain language, and someone withdrawing from a conference doesn't immediately make me think of a fictional evil regime that tortures people for reading a book or saying the wrong thing.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Can you go into more detail? I'm not sure I see how it isn't the same. If we think any use of the word "black" to describe something negative causes "an unconscious climate of anti-blackness", it seems like that implies a commitment to examine every black-colored thing.
sukilot 6y ago
You got it precisely backwards. using "black" to mean both "African" and "evil", instead of using a separate word for the idea of evil, is a perfect example of Newspeak. The design of Newspeak is to force unintended meanings into words. Please get a copy of 1984 and read the appendix on Newspeak.
- dingaling 6y ago
  I think you need to check the etymology of 'black' in relation to skin colour. It dates to about the early 1600s derived from the term 'blackamoor' which is still used as an art term for figurines depicting African people in subservient postures. Using the term 'black' in relation to people is therefore connected to the slave trade and I'd recommend that you cease using it instead of overloading it in that context.

rbecker 6y ago

> it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this Judging by the name, David Kleidermacher is Jewish. Edit: Flagged? But it was the parent post that brought up race, yet it remains unflagged. Why was that instance OK, but this isn't?

tdeck 6y ago

Whether the term "black hat" perpetuates racial prejudices or not (I'm unconvinced), I think this kind of comment has the potential to take the whole thread down the wrong path. It asserts (without evidence) that no working-class Black people care about this¹, then argues that the author is "no doubt nevertheless wrong", and then quotes a work of fiction without any explanation of why the analogy is apt. Why is it that every time there's a discussion about language like this people try to shut it down with hyperbolic comparisons to totalitarianism rather than actually engaging? We can have these kinds of discussions while also pushing companies to put their money where their mouth is. ¹ Could it be instead that when working-class Black people complain about this they don't get national press?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
People make hyperbolic comparisons because the previous hyperbolic comparisons keep coming true. A decade or two ago, "activists want us to examine all black-colored things to make sure they're not racist" was a ridiculous hyperbolic claim.
- tdeck 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, that's a bad-faith misrepresentation of the position. The position is more like "we've got lots of expressions that associate `black` with `bad`, and maybe we should move away from them in a professional context." The claim isn't that the origin of these terms itself is necessarily racist (e.g. a black sheep is a sheep whose wool can't be dyed), only that their use helps to an unconscious climate of anti-blackness. Again, I'm not really convinced that this is true, but it's not the same as saying we should examine every "black-colored thing" to make sure it's not racist. And crucially, I'm not irrationally upset over the mere suggestion that we should rethink certain language, and someone withdrawing from a conference doesn't immediately make me think of a fictional evil regime that tortures people for reading a book or saying the wrong thing.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Can you go into more detail? I'm not sure I see how it isn't the same. If we think any use of the word "black" to describe something negative causes "an unconscious climate of anti-blackness", it seems like that implies a commitment to examine every black-colored thing.

sukilot 6y ago

You got it precisely backwards. using "black" to mean both "African" and "evil", instead of using a separate word for the idea of evil, is a perfect example of Newspeak. The design of Newspeak is to force unintended meanings into words. Please get a copy of 1984 and read the appendix on Newspeak.

dingaling 6y ago
I think you need to check the etymology of 'black' in relation to skin colour. It dates to about the early 1600s derived from the term 'blackamoor' which is still used as an art term for figurines depicting African people in subservient postures. Using the term 'black' in relation to people is therefore connected to the slave trade and I'd recommend that you cease using it instead of overloading it in that context.