3 ms·

Please answer my questions in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28788666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28788666

lisper 5y ago
I would be more inclined to do so if you hadn't opened by accusing me of supporting white supremacy. I consider that a very serious charge. What did I say that makes you think I deserve it?
- eevilspock 5y ago
  I didn't say you consciously support it. I said your take reflects it. I suspect your definition of "white supremacy" is "the KKK". For me and many others, it has a much broader definition: White supremacy is the Eurocentric/racial analog of patriarchy. As with patriarchy, it is a deeply integral part of the dominant culture. It is part of the social and historical milieu within which we all came into being. See also https://www.pym.org/annual-sessions/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/06/What_Is_White_Supremacy_Martinez.pdf https://www.pym.org/annual-sessions/wp-content/uploads/sites... One doesn't have to be a misogynist or even a man to view things through the lens of patriarchy, or fail to realize one's perspective is so narrated. Likewise you can have black friends, participate in BLM protests or even be black and still have a white take on things ("white" here refers to culture, not skin color), because that is the culture that dominates, the economic system that dominates, the political power that dominates. Patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalist and heteronormative culture is woven into the fiber of even my own being. We all must work to unravel it. I haven't watched your documentary on homelessness, but obviously you are a thoughtful bloke. We could converse over email if you'd like. See my HN profile.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > For me and many others, [white supremacy] has a much broader definition. I call this the Humpty Dumpty theory of language [1]. The term "white supremacy" already has a well-established definition: the belief that white people are genetically superior to non-white people and therefore white people should dominate society [2]. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of this, but that is manifestly not the case. You just decided to use your own definition, and to do so tacitly. I think that is reprehensible. Imagine if someone called you (say) a rapist and then tried to justify that by saying, "I suspect your definition of rapist is different than mine." Yes, my definition (a.k.a. the dictionary definition) of "white supremacist" is different than your postmodern SJW version. That doesn't make what you said any less pejorative. And yes, I'm a white European male living in a culture that has been largely shaped and is currently still dominated by other white European males. And yes, there are a lot of white European males out there doing all kinds of fucked up things. There's not much I can do about that. If you think that I should be ashamed because I have a Y chromosome and my skin is white then you are no better than the people who say the same thing about women and black people. > We all must work to unravel it. Why must we do that? Personally, I think it's enough if we treat our fellow humans with respect and judge them by what they say and do rather than their skin color or gender or ethnic and cultural background. But apparently even that is too much to expect in some quarters. --- [1] https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - eevilspock 5y ago
      It doesn't seem to make sense to continue our discussion given your angry and defensive reaction. You even ignored the second half of the dictionary definition that YOU supplied, the very definition you used to dismiss the words that you put in my mouth, strawman words, not once showing you even tried to understand what I am actually saying. And no, you don't understand, but you don't want to understand. You would have to set aside your defensiveness and be open to considering uncomfortable thoughts. On the other hand, as the other commenter pointed out, you wrote "Conservatives Can't Handle the Truth", so you very well understand how ego and our instinctive reactionary defense of our self-image are barriers to understanding truth. And in "Can facts be racist?" you clearly understand that there is a systemic problem. What you are resistant to accepting, despite your liberalness, despite caring enough to write anti-racism blog posts, is the possibility that you have thoughts and perspectives and even values that still reflect the culture behind the "white nation, founded for and by the white man". If such a man as Abraham Lincoln, considered our greatest president, the man who led us into civil war against slavery and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, was a white supremacist[1] (using your narrower definition!), is it not possible that you are not one, but nonetheless harbor at least remnants of such a mode of thinking? Is it not rational to think that someone who benefits from said system and culture is less inlined (if not inclined in the opposite direction!) to be aware of their own blindspots in this respect? I in fact live in Bedstuy, one of the neighborhoods you mention in the latter blog post. And every year there are more and more white people moving in and more black people being pushed out. All these white people moving in are liberals, anti-racist and no doubt proudly tell their white friends that they live in a black neighborhood. But yet again white people are taking over something that they once rejected as undesirable and segregated blacks within, because now they consider it desirable (and profitable!). This isn't integration (that would be beautiful!). Integration is black and white segregation melting away as they move into each other's neighborhoods. That's not what's happening. White people are spreading outward, pushing black people further out. They don't send their white children to go to school with their black neighborhood children, instead sending them to white private schools. Imagine what that does to the psyche of a black child! The whites moving in don't patronize existing black businesses. They go to all the new white-owned upscale cafes and restaurants popping up, to expensive for most of the black people, and too much a betrayal for those who can. So you see a pockets of white people in white-tailored restaurants while black people eat at black places. NOT integration. The outspoken younger generation of black people here call these gentrifiers "colonizers", because they invade and occupy, same as before, only now using the tools of capitalism rather than guns (though we all know the latter makes the former possible). They also call it a manifestation of white supremacy. I call it "liberal white supremacy", to shine a light on the fact that scapegoating conservatives is just a way for liberals to push off all moral responsibility as the continue to benefit from the system. My offer of a good faith discussion remains, but as I said, if your primary drive is defensiveness, it won't go anywhere useful, and will if anything push you toward those conservatives you criticize. In any case, Peace. --- [1] There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ~ Abraham Lincoln, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858
  - coolgeek 5y ago
    You might want to take a look at some other posts on the author's blog. A couple of suggestions: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=7169691182201277241 https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=7169... https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=5209483737174566021 https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=5209...
    - eevilspock 5y ago
      cookgeek, thanks. See my more recent reply to Ron.

lisper 5y ago

I would be more inclined to do so if you hadn't opened by accusing me of supporting white supremacy. I consider that a very serious charge. What did I say that makes you think I deserve it?

eevilspock 5y ago
I didn't say you consciously support it. I said your take reflects it. I suspect your definition of "white supremacy" is "the KKK". For me and many others, it has a much broader definition: White supremacy is the Eurocentric/racial analog of patriarchy. As with patriarchy, it is a deeply integral part of the dominant culture. It is part of the social and historical milieu within which we all came into being. See also https://www.pym.org/annual-sessions/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/06/What_Is_White_Supremacy_Martinez.pdf https://www.pym.org/annual-sessions/wp-content/uploads/sites... One doesn't have to be a misogynist or even a man to view things through the lens of patriarchy, or fail to realize one's perspective is so narrated. Likewise you can have black friends, participate in BLM protests or even be black and still have a white take on things ("white" here refers to culture, not skin color), because that is the culture that dominates, the economic system that dominates, the political power that dominates. Patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalist and heteronormative culture is woven into the fiber of even my own being. We all must work to unravel it. I haven't watched your documentary on homelessness, but obviously you are a thoughtful bloke. We could converse over email if you'd like. See my HN profile.
- lisper 5y ago
  > For me and many others, [white supremacy] has a much broader definition. I call this the Humpty Dumpty theory of language [1]. The term "white supremacy" already has a well-established definition: the belief that white people are genetically superior to non-white people and therefore white people should dominate society [2]. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of this, but that is manifestly not the case. You just decided to use your own definition, and to do so tacitly. I think that is reprehensible. Imagine if someone called you (say) a rapist and then tried to justify that by saying, "I suspect your definition of rapist is different than mine." Yes, my definition (a.k.a. the dictionary definition) of "white supremacist" is different than your postmodern SJW version. That doesn't make what you said any less pejorative. And yes, I'm a white European male living in a culture that has been largely shaped and is currently still dominated by other white European males. And yes, there are a lot of white European males out there doing all kinds of fucked up things. There's not much I can do about that. If you think that I should be ashamed because I have a Y chromosome and my skin is white then you are no better than the people who say the same thing about women and black people. > We all must work to unravel it. Why must we do that? Personally, I think it's enough if we treat our fellow humans with respect and judge them by what they say and do rather than their skin color or gender or ethnic and cultural background. But apparently even that is too much to expect in some quarters. --- [1] https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - eevilspock 5y ago
    It doesn't seem to make sense to continue our discussion given your angry and defensive reaction. You even ignored the second half of the dictionary definition that YOU supplied, the very definition you used to dismiss the words that you put in my mouth, strawman words, not once showing you even tried to understand what I am actually saying. And no, you don't understand, but you don't want to understand. You would have to set aside your defensiveness and be open to considering uncomfortable thoughts. On the other hand, as the other commenter pointed out, you wrote "Conservatives Can't Handle the Truth", so you very well understand how ego and our instinctive reactionary defense of our self-image are barriers to understanding truth. And in "Can facts be racist?" you clearly understand that there is a systemic problem. What you are resistant to accepting, despite your liberalness, despite caring enough to write anti-racism blog posts, is the possibility that you have thoughts and perspectives and even values that still reflect the culture behind the "white nation, founded for and by the white man". If such a man as Abraham Lincoln, considered our greatest president, the man who led us into civil war against slavery and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, was a white supremacist[1] (using your narrower definition!), is it not possible that you are not one, but nonetheless harbor at least remnants of such a mode of thinking? Is it not rational to think that someone who benefits from said system and culture is less inlined (if not inclined in the opposite direction!) to be aware of their own blindspots in this respect? I in fact live in Bedstuy, one of the neighborhoods you mention in the latter blog post. And every year there are more and more white people moving in and more black people being pushed out. All these white people moving in are liberals, anti-racist and no doubt proudly tell their white friends that they live in a black neighborhood. But yet again white people are taking over something that they once rejected as undesirable and segregated blacks within, because now they consider it desirable (and profitable!). This isn't integration (that would be beautiful!). Integration is black and white segregation melting away as they move into each other's neighborhoods. That's not what's happening. White people are spreading outward, pushing black people further out. They don't send their white children to go to school with their black neighborhood children, instead sending them to white private schools. Imagine what that does to the psyche of a black child! The whites moving in don't patronize existing black businesses. They go to all the new white-owned upscale cafes and restaurants popping up, to expensive for most of the black people, and too much a betrayal for those who can. So you see a pockets of white people in white-tailored restaurants while black people eat at black places. NOT integration. The outspoken younger generation of black people here call these gentrifiers "colonizers", because they invade and occupy, same as before, only now using the tools of capitalism rather than guns (though we all know the latter makes the former possible). They also call it a manifestation of white supremacy. I call it "liberal white supremacy", to shine a light on the fact that scapegoating conservatives is just a way for liberals to push off all moral responsibility as the continue to benefit from the system. My offer of a good faith discussion remains, but as I said, if your primary drive is defensiveness, it won't go anywhere useful, and will if anything push you toward those conservatives you criticize. In any case, Peace. --- [1] There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ~ Abraham Lincoln, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858
- coolgeek 5y ago
  You might want to take a look at some other posts on the author's blog. A couple of suggestions: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=7169691182201277241 https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=7169... https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=5209483737174566021 https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5592542&postID=5209...
  - eevilspock 5y ago
    cookgeek, thanks. See my more recent reply to Ron.