5 ms·

> Through a simple accusation of racial bias, the author seeks to undermine the technical work that went into the development of the MP3 codec. I'm always surp

by fao_ 6y ago

> Through a simple accusation of racial bias, the author seeks to undermine the technical work that went into the development of the MP3 codec. I'm always surprised when pointing out that something has design limits, and often limits imposed by racial bias in testing, is seen as such an evil thing. Acknowledging the limits is the first part of making use of something properly, wouldn't you say? Understanding that MP3 is likely (Although it would have to be confirmed via testing) to have poorer encoding on non-white artforms is important to choosing a media encoding, no? I'm not sure how acknowledging the limits they created is "undermining the work that went into it", can you explain why you feel that is the case?

bonoboTP 6y ago
> non-white artforms You Americans (I'm assuming) are really strange. Dividing the world into white and non-white art forms, white and non-white "ways of knowing" etc. is exactly how the Nazis and fascists thought here in Europe. You are going right back into the same divisive state of affairs.
- all2 6y ago
  Don't assume we all do it. Identity politics is used to get people to ignore class politics. It is driven primarily by the left-leaning political factions. > exactly how the Nazis and fascists thought here in Europe Yes, we know. That's why we wound up with an orange man who didn't really care about race. > You are going right back into the same divisive state of affairs. Division allows the elites to control the masses more efficiently. It's like "divided we fall" might be true or something. Prepare to see the division tear the United States in half. That's the goal, anyway.
  - fao_ 6y ago
    > Identity politics is used to get people to ignore class politics. It is driven primarily by the left-leaning political factions. That's amusing, because most of the people of colour I follow on the Fediverse give class-based intersectional analyses of political happenings. In most leftist circles, identity politics has been seamlessly merged with class politics in an effort to ensure that class politics serves the purpose of uplifting all lower class people, rather than just the white lower classes, and in an effort to eliminate discrimination and mistreatment of all kinds. This is the purpose of any form of left-wing ideology. Indeed, Tony Cliff wrote on the topic of class and intersectionality back in the 1970s*, it isn't a new thing -- certainly not new to academic socialist circles. It is simply only recently that it has entered the majority consciousness. One can see that intersectional analysis does not conflict with class analysis, but compliments it and allows one better lenses by which to view the various conflicts and struggles in the modern world (or indeed, many of the struggles of the 20th century). See the unity he seeks by adding the lense of intersectionality, and see the error in your assessment that "Intersectional Analysis" is somehow adverse to and conflicts with "Class Analysis", I beg of you. * - https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.ht...
- fao_ 6y ago
  First thing is, I am not an American. I am a White Welsh person. That said, there is significant systemic inequality in western countries, that is often racially biased. This is what is meant by "intersectionality". The other response talks in terms of "class warfare" and it is important to note that the whole reason Intersectionality arose as a concept was because "upholding women" often meant "upholding white women", and "upholding lower class workers" often led to measures that did not consider people of colour, and therefore led to them being more disadvantaged. You cannot view oppression purely in terms of class, when you do, voices are unheard and lost. Because of the cultural split, enforced by said systemic inequality, there is a cultural difference. It would be foolish and ignorant to ignore that difference and claim that it doesn't exist. Indeed, "Colour Blindness" as you are proposing, has been outed as racist ideology for over half a century (Jane Elliot explains this rather well). By ignoring the fact that people have different skin tone, and have been disadvantaged by it, you are choosing to ignore their very existence. If the entire human race were "homogenized" there would be much of value that is lost. Likewise, when we talk in terms of "white people" and "people of colour", we are simply recognizing and acknowledging the split that comes from that disadvantage that still exists -- in terms of the original argument, we are recognizing that this specific encoding of sound information is likely biased to encode white culture, white art, better. That is a difference that should be corrected, and to correct it we need to acknowledge it first. In summary, I'm simply following the terminology given to me by people of colour, who often talk in these terms. The best I can do is follow their example and speak out in the manner that they have taught, or (better still) promote their voices on these matters.

by fao_ 6y ago

bonoboTP 6y ago

> non-white artforms You Americans (I'm assuming) are really strange. Dividing the world into white and non-white art forms, white and non-white "ways of knowing" etc. is exactly how the Nazis and fascists thought here in Europe. You are going right back into the same divisive state of affairs.

all2 6y ago
Don't assume we all do it. Identity politics is used to get people to ignore class politics. It is driven primarily by the left-leaning political factions. > exactly how the Nazis and fascists thought here in Europe Yes, we know. That's why we wound up with an orange man who didn't really care about race. > You are going right back into the same divisive state of affairs. Division allows the elites to control the masses more efficiently. It's like "divided we fall" might be true or something. Prepare to see the division tear the United States in half. That's the goal, anyway.
- fao_ 6y ago
  > Identity politics is used to get people to ignore class politics. It is driven primarily by the left-leaning political factions. That's amusing, because most of the people of colour I follow on the Fediverse give class-based intersectional analyses of political happenings. In most leftist circles, identity politics has been seamlessly merged with class politics in an effort to ensure that class politics serves the purpose of uplifting all lower class people, rather than just the white lower classes, and in an effort to eliminate discrimination and mistreatment of all kinds. This is the purpose of any form of left-wing ideology. Indeed, Tony Cliff wrote on the topic of class and intersectionality back in the 1970s*, it isn't a new thing -- certainly not new to academic socialist circles. It is simply only recently that it has entered the majority consciousness. One can see that intersectional analysis does not conflict with class analysis, but compliments it and allows one better lenses by which to view the various conflicts and struggles in the modern world (or indeed, many of the struggles of the 20th century). See the unity he seeks by adding the lense of intersectionality, and see the error in your assessment that "Intersectional Analysis" is somehow adverse to and conflicts with "Class Analysis", I beg of you. * - https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.ht...
fao_ 6y ago
First thing is, I am not an American. I am a White Welsh person. That said, there is significant systemic inequality in western countries, that is often racially biased. This is what is meant by "intersectionality". The other response talks in terms of "class warfare" and it is important to note that the whole reason Intersectionality arose as a concept was because "upholding women" often meant "upholding white women", and "upholding lower class workers" often led to measures that did not consider people of colour, and therefore led to them being more disadvantaged. You cannot view oppression purely in terms of class, when you do, voices are unheard and lost. Because of the cultural split, enforced by said systemic inequality, there is a cultural difference. It would be foolish and ignorant to ignore that difference and claim that it doesn't exist. Indeed, "Colour Blindness" as you are proposing, has been outed as racist ideology for over half a century (Jane Elliot explains this rather well). By ignoring the fact that people have different skin tone, and have been disadvantaged by it, you are choosing to ignore their very existence. If the entire human race were "homogenized" there would be much of value that is lost. Likewise, when we talk in terms of "white people" and "people of colour", we are simply recognizing and acknowledging the split that comes from that disadvantage that still exists -- in terms of the original argument, we are recognizing that this specific encoding of sound information is likely biased to encode white culture, white art, better. That is a difference that should be corrected, and to correct it we need to acknowledge it first. In summary, I'm simply following the terminology given to me by people of colour, who often talk in these terms. The best I can do is follow their example and speak out in the manner that they have taught, or (better still) promote their voices on these matters.