7 ms·

His bigotry goes beyond anti-semitism. Kamau Bobb's blog posts were almost exclusively about White and Jewish people, as a whole, and their mistreatment of Bla

His bigotry goes beyond anti-semitism. Kamau Bobb's blog posts were almost exclusively about White and Jewish people, as a whole, and their mistreatment of Black Americans both historically and today. He even targets progressive white people for their more unspoken racism. There is a very obvious tone of distaste for white and Jewish people in his posts. Search for the word "white" or "Jew" in his blog [1] posts to see for yourself. [1] http://kamaubobb.blogspot.com/ http://kamaubobb.blogspot.com/ Since Google supports "cancel culture", Kamau Bobb should be fired. I don't see how he, having himself being accused of being a racist [2], can work in any diversity or HR department. [2] http://kamaubobb.blogspot.com/2011/08/accused-of-being-racist.html http://kamaubobb.blogspot.com/2011/08/accused-of-being-racis... Some choice excerpts... > The cost of elite education for our children is extraordinary. I dropped my beautiful black star into a sea of white children and it hurt. > among the increasing number of white women holding leadership roles in the academy and in the public and private sector, they surely see younger versions of themselves in the next generation of white girls. It is a natural instinct to want the very best for them. > In a nation with a history such as ours, that imagery is connected to a much longer and darker legacy – a legacy where white men have abused black women and girls with impunity. > I do not need to be convinced that diversity and excellence are intimately interwoven. But what of my White counterparts? I really do not know how White people learn about Black or Hispanic people in ways that are honest > Perhaps it is time to focus the inquiry on our White counterparts. They may well feel marginalized by the shortage of academic inquiry into the complexity of their changing American citizenship alongside people of color. Their sense of self-efficacy may be undermined by their pending loss of majority status. > I was learning about the resilient spirit of black people in America in the context of white American barbarism. > It is still true that white people kill black people in America with impunity. It goes on and on...

world_peace42 5y ago
Cancel culture is not about canceling people who say racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc things. It is about canceling (read: disenfranchising and taking revenge on) straight white males, who are at the bottom (top? intersection? whichever) of the intersectional hierarchy. Kamau Bobb is not a white male, therefore this does not apply. He is receiving the same treatment that any powerful person, regardless of skin color, would have received 10 years ago in the western world: tuck them away until the scandal blows over.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  What? This event seems to match the collectively assigned definition fine. "Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been "cancelled". The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship. The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting or shunning involving an individual (often a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture
  - world_peace42 5y ago
    That definition is neither empirical, nor is it collectively defined. It is selectively assigned and selectively enforced. And here we are, in a thread where the top level post provides an obvious example.
    - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
      Miriam Webster also seems to agree. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture-words-were-watching https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture...
      - fouric 5y ago
        Miriam Webster is even further from "collectively defined" than Wikipedia is.
        f38zf5vdt 5y ago
        I'm more concerned with individuals attempting to rewrite the modern lexicon to their own benefit.
ebin1 5y ago
Do note that the issue, in the media reporting of the incident, mentions and highlights one and not the other.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pessimizer 5y ago
1) Where's the lie? 2) It's funny how the Damore defenders shed their free speech hucksterism like yesterday's underwear.
- tobesure 5y ago
  >It's funny how the Damore defenders shed their free speech hucksterism like yesterday's underwear. No, people are pointing out the racist double standard.
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's rules with? We're trying for a different kind of forum here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into all-out flamewar hell. We're trying to go the opposite way here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban that sort of account, regardless of which ideology you're battling for, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for. If you would please review the guidelines and use HN in the intended spirit from now on—curious, substantive conversation—we'd appreciate it. Note, for example, this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
germinalphrase 5y ago
Do you believe the acknowledgement of race or racial difference to be intrinsically bigoted?
- stickfigure 5y ago
  It's one thing to acknowledge differences. It's another to define ourselves by them.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Or to conflate "this is true on average for this group of people" with "this is true for everyone in this group".
- JPKab 5y ago
  Yes. Kids don't see skin color the way these ideologues do. They look at it like hair color. My twin brother and I were literally the only white kids on our school bus, attending mostly black public schools in a mostly black county in southeastern Virginia. We were never really aware of skin color as a thing, just "this kid let's us borrow his gameboy and is nice", vs. "this kid punches us in the back of the head on the bus cuz he's psycho". Race was a useless proxy for good/bad when you are in a heavily integrated school system, because it's ALWAYS been a useless proxy for judging human character. People that speak like this publicly ("sea of white children") are THINKING like this constantly. In my opinion, he projects his own bigotry and obsession with skin color onto everyone else around him. That's what bigots of all colors do.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    > Kids don't see skin color the way these ideologues do. Infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.ht...
  - noen 5y ago
    Through my childhood I would agree with you. By the time I was in high school this was no longer the case. Had many black friends, and once we all pass puberty and got cars, the world changed. The first time I was with a black friend who got pulled over for no reason, and seeing the cop visibly change his demeanor when he saw me (white clean cut male) in the passenger seat, changed me. Talked with my friend after - this was already normalized for him. I was angry beyond belief. It’s a useless proxy for judgement and yet US society does it to black and hispanic people with alarming consistency and frequency. It hasn’t gotten better since my youth. This is the crux of white privilege and why “cancel culture” is bullshit for snowflakes who can’t imagine that the world is as systematically unjust as it really is. I’ve listened to many black activists who ARE anti-white, who do self segregate, and I don’t blame any of them for a second nor hold any animosity towards them. They spent their lives being lied to, despised, tricked, and crapped on. Why would anyone want to continue that cycle?
throwkeep 5y ago
Has anyone else noticed how often the loudest voices have the most baggage in the very subject they advocate against?
chrischattin 5y ago
It seems like it's always the more "holier than thou" that are the most evil and corrupt. And, the ones who are always preaching "inclusive" the most tend to be the most bigoted.
codyb 5y ago
Hmm... I'm a white man who doesn't consider himself half as "woke" as the (I'm certain a bit exaggerated) descriptions of what happens on Twitter and none of that feels particularly offensive to me? "I dropped my black star into a sea of white and it hurt" -> "I see so many beautiful black stars, why don't more of them get this wonderful opportunity?" "A natural instinct to want the very best for people that look like them" -> Isn't the author displaying this own natural instinct in the very previous excerpt you chose about the sea of white? I'm hard pressed to say I'd find it inconceivable that humans empathize more strongly with people who are closer in appearance to them. "a much longer and darker legacy where whites have abused black girls and women with impunity" -> I mean, yea... that's definitely back there for sure. "Perhaps it's time to focus our inquiry on white people who may have complex emotions regarding their changing position in society" - race is a complex issue and maybe we should examine it from a few more angles? Sure, that seems fine? "White people kill Black people with impunity" -> Chauvin's conviction was almost certainly the exception in cases of police homicide is my understanding, especially when the victim is Black and the police officer is white (or in many other instances of white on Black violence). I don't get the sense this person's painting all white people with broad strokes really? Maybe just thinking critically about a system which traditionally has undermined certain segments of our population and may finally be in some position to come to grips with that. In some sense he appears to be saying "Hey lets take a look at why people may be feeling in some manner" and not "Wow, I can't believe people would feel that way, those <insert name calling here>". It's also possible that it's hard to offend me and I give people the benefit of the doubt a lot.
- tobesure 5y ago
  >White people kill Black people with impunity >Hey lets take a look at why people may be feeling in some manner >Perhaps it's time to focus our inquiry on white people who may have complex emotions regarding their changing position in society All of these are painting white people with broad strokes. More importantly if you replaced "white" with any other minority it would be socially unacceptable. There's also a problem with the framing of the argument here - any criticism is premptively dismissed with accusations of "complex emotions" which is conflated with "white fragility" and eventually racism. The CRT inspired framing is basically whites as a demographic are wrong, must step back and allow us to force them to collectively atone for the sins of past whites, and anyone who criticisms this forced transfer of power is a racist. The grand irony here is that the entire premise is fundamentally racist and falsely justifies increasingly socially acceptable anti-white sentiment. Either racism is socially acceptable, or it isn't. Normalizing this talk about problematic whiteness is only opening a can of worms, regressing progress toward race blindness, and the backlash will be severe. It's exactly the sort of perceived disenfranchisement that CRT accuses whites of doing, except it's being done intentionally and subversively here - hidden via intellectually dishonest rhetorical technique.
extra88 5y ago
None of those excerpts are concerning on a personal blog. I assume his removal is based on something more substantive. Maybe you're imagining the reaction if "black" and "white" were reversed in the writing. It would be very different because it's very different to be black rather than white in America.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > It would be very different because it's very different to be black rather than white in America. That's a race essentialist myth[^1]. There are no "white experiences" or "black experiences". We assign "white" and "black" labels to diverse individuals with diverse experiences who process their experiences differently. The average black person may have a different experience than the average white person, but the variance is so large (more variance within a race than between races) that this is utterly useless for talking about any individual (the "average white person" and "average black person" don't actually exist). [^1]: I would say "a racist myth" but that's a bit overloaded these days and it carries some judgmental connotations that I don't want to imply, but it is no less racist than other racist myths.

world_peace42 5y ago

Cancel culture is not about canceling people who say racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc things. It is about canceling (read: disenfranchising and taking revenge on) straight white males, who are at the bottom (top? intersection? whichever) of the intersectional hierarchy. Kamau Bobb is not a white male, therefore this does not apply. He is receiving the same treatment that any powerful person, regardless of skin color, would have received 10 years ago in the western world: tuck them away until the scandal blows over.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
What? This event seems to match the collectively assigned definition fine. "Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been "cancelled". The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship. The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting or shunning involving an individual (often a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture
- world_peace42 5y ago
  That definition is neither empirical, nor is it collectively defined. It is selectively assigned and selectively enforced. And here we are, in a thread where the top level post provides an obvious example.
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    Miriam Webster also seems to agree. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture-words-were-watching https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture...
    - fouric 5y ago
      Miriam Webster is even further from "collectively defined" than Wikipedia is.
      - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
        I'm more concerned with individuals attempting to rewrite the modern lexicon to their own benefit.

ebin1 5y ago

Do note that the issue, in the media reporting of the incident, mentions and highlights one and not the other.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pessimizer 5y ago

1) Where's the lie? 2) It's funny how the Damore defenders shed their free speech hucksterism like yesterday's underwear.

tobesure 5y ago
>It's funny how the Damore defenders shed their free speech hucksterism like yesterday's underwear. No, people are pointing out the racist double standard.
- dang 5y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's rules with? We're trying for a different kind of forum here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads into all-out flamewar hell. We're trying to go the opposite way here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban that sort of account, regardless of which ideology you're battling for, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for. If you would please review the guidelines and use HN in the intended spirit from now on—curious, substantive conversation—we'd appreciate it. Note, for example, this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

germinalphrase 5y ago

Do you believe the acknowledgement of race or racial difference to be intrinsically bigoted?

stickfigure 5y ago
It's one thing to acknowledge differences. It's another to define ourselves by them.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Or to conflate "this is true on average for this group of people" with "this is true for everyone in this group".
JPKab 5y ago
Yes. Kids don't see skin color the way these ideologues do. They look at it like hair color. My twin brother and I were literally the only white kids on our school bus, attending mostly black public schools in a mostly black county in southeastern Virginia. We were never really aware of skin color as a thing, just "this kid let's us borrow his gameboy and is nice", vs. "this kid punches us in the back of the head on the bus cuz he's psycho". Race was a useless proxy for good/bad when you are in a heavily integrated school system, because it's ALWAYS been a useless proxy for judging human character. People that speak like this publicly ("sea of white children") are THINKING like this constantly. In my opinion, he projects his own bigotry and obsession with skin color onto everyone else around him. That's what bigots of all colors do.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  > Kids don't see skin color the way these ideologues do. Infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.ht...
- noen 5y ago
  Through my childhood I would agree with you. By the time I was in high school this was no longer the case. Had many black friends, and once we all pass puberty and got cars, the world changed. The first time I was with a black friend who got pulled over for no reason, and seeing the cop visibly change his demeanor when he saw me (white clean cut male) in the passenger seat, changed me. Talked with my friend after - this was already normalized for him. I was angry beyond belief. It’s a useless proxy for judgement and yet US society does it to black and hispanic people with alarming consistency and frequency. It hasn’t gotten better since my youth. This is the crux of white privilege and why “cancel culture” is bullshit for snowflakes who can’t imagine that the world is as systematically unjust as it really is. I’ve listened to many black activists who ARE anti-white, who do self segregate, and I don’t blame any of them for a second nor hold any animosity towards them. They spent their lives being lied to, despised, tricked, and crapped on. Why would anyone want to continue that cycle?

throwkeep 5y ago

Has anyone else noticed how often the loudest voices have the most baggage in the very subject they advocate against?

chrischattin 5y ago

It seems like it's always the more "holier than thou" that are the most evil and corrupt. And, the ones who are always preaching "inclusive" the most tend to be the most bigoted.

codyb 5y ago

Hmm... I'm a white man who doesn't consider himself half as "woke" as the (I'm certain a bit exaggerated) descriptions of what happens on Twitter and none of that feels particularly offensive to me? "I dropped my black star into a sea of white and it hurt" -> "I see so many beautiful black stars, why don't more of them get this wonderful opportunity?" "A natural instinct to want the very best for people that look like them" -> Isn't the author displaying this own natural instinct in the very previous excerpt you chose about the sea of white? I'm hard pressed to say I'd find it inconceivable that humans empathize more strongly with people who are closer in appearance to them. "a much longer and darker legacy where whites have abused black girls and women with impunity" -> I mean, yea... that's definitely back there for sure. "Perhaps it's time to focus our inquiry on white people who may have complex emotions regarding their changing position in society" - race is a complex issue and maybe we should examine it from a few more angles? Sure, that seems fine? "White people kill Black people with impunity" -> Chauvin's conviction was almost certainly the exception in cases of police homicide is my understanding, especially when the victim is Black and the police officer is white (or in many other instances of white on Black violence). I don't get the sense this person's painting all white people with broad strokes really? Maybe just thinking critically about a system which traditionally has undermined certain segments of our population and may finally be in some position to come to grips with that. In some sense he appears to be saying "Hey lets take a look at why people may be feeling in some manner" and not "Wow, I can't believe people would feel that way, those <insert name calling here>". It's also possible that it's hard to offend me and I give people the benefit of the doubt a lot.

tobesure 5y ago
>White people kill Black people with impunity >Hey lets take a look at why people may be feeling in some manner >Perhaps it's time to focus our inquiry on white people who may have complex emotions regarding their changing position in society All of these are painting white people with broad strokes. More importantly if you replaced "white" with any other minority it would be socially unacceptable. There's also a problem with the framing of the argument here - any criticism is premptively dismissed with accusations of "complex emotions" which is conflated with "white fragility" and eventually racism. The CRT inspired framing is basically whites as a demographic are wrong, must step back and allow us to force them to collectively atone for the sins of past whites, and anyone who criticisms this forced transfer of power is a racist. The grand irony here is that the entire premise is fundamentally racist and falsely justifies increasingly socially acceptable anti-white sentiment. Either racism is socially acceptable, or it isn't. Normalizing this talk about problematic whiteness is only opening a can of worms, regressing progress toward race blindness, and the backlash will be severe. It's exactly the sort of perceived disenfranchisement that CRT accuses whites of doing, except it's being done intentionally and subversively here - hidden via intellectually dishonest rhetorical technique.

extra88 5y ago

None of those excerpts are concerning on a personal blog. I assume his removal is based on something more substantive. Maybe you're imagining the reaction if "black" and "white" were reversed in the writing. It would be very different because it's very different to be black rather than white in America.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> It would be very different because it's very different to be black rather than white in America. That's a race essentialist myth[^1]. There are no "white experiences" or "black experiences". We assign "white" and "black" labels to diverse individuals with diverse experiences who process their experiences differently. The average black person may have a different experience than the average white person, but the variance is so large (more variance within a race than between races) that this is utterly useless for talking about any individual (the "average white person" and "average black person" don't actually exist). [^1]: I would say "a racist myth" but that's a bit overloaded these days and it carries some judgmental connotations that I don't want to imply, but it is no less racist than other racist myths.